AAA gaming has become huge and costly, sometimes resulting in business practices that anger consumers. How did we get here? Let's talk. Subscribe for more: / gameranxtv
OB3 STA Because the work is so spread out between tons of dofferent people, different ideas clash and some things dont "fit" together. Sometime a game needs to be rushed out to make money, (understandable, but still a shit move), etc.
That's why you give the game 4-6 months and the price will drop,or wait a year and get the all the dlc plus the game for the same price when it 1st dropped
Simple, they spend more than 60% of the budget *likely more* on marketing, they've been going so over the top with it. Doing brand deals, on every single bill board, bus stops, ads before a movie in cinema's and on TV. That shit adds up fast. The making of games themselves has gone DOWN in cost. renting engines, cheaper tech, higher tech. So on.
SadisticNemesis even if that is true they kinda have to because there are thousands of games coming out each day and they want to get the gamers attention
Or just release the VC on Switch with GC support. Add better 3rd party support to add games like Bioshock, and watch the entire Game Industry crash. Meanwhile, we still have those thousands of games to play and Nintendo to just give us what we really want. Bishock and Metroid Prime on the go.
This is exactly what I was thinking. For what I known, the biggest part of the budget of AAA games goes to marketing. It's sad cause it kinda invalidates the whole point of the video.
I hate games with too big and empty maps. I also hate too short games(5 hours). Medium size, populated with all kinds of things and a lot to do, is the way to go!
All games with MT and luck-based lootboxes should be rated AO by the ESRB. Adults only, 18+, require photo ID to purchase. It's 100% gambling to have luck based lootboxes in your games. I'm sure a lot of publishers wouldn't put lootboxes in their games if that was the case.
RemixedVoice sadly most governments around the world won’t consider them as such which is are allowed to get away with it. I also think buying in game currency to get things is just as bad, whilst you know what you are getting some games try to hide how much each of their own currency is worth purely because they want you to buy the more expensive packs.
RemixedVoice the line between gambling and lootboxes is that you always get something with lootboxes even if you don't want it while with gambling you can loose everything
@ShadenR Okay, if I make a slot machine that always gives you atleast 1 cent, it is not gambling anymore because you always get something? NICE. I just found a way circumvent gambling laws. Time to make some money out of kids.
My primary issue with game size is when it feels artificial. If the world is small, make it feel real. If the world is large, make it feel real. I remember playing games like Oblivion and Skyrim and I would be running for my life after trying to take on an enemy I couldn't handle only to smack right into an invisible wall. Here I am running through a large forest only to discover the forest was an illusion. I don't care how big a world is, just make it feel real.
Bethesda LOVES their invisible walls, it's how they tell you the map boundaries. I would've thought they learned something from Obsidian, NV used the terrain itself, two fences and a water barrier to denote the boundaries, no invisible "you can't go this way" walls.
It's simple. The cost is down to getting drunk. Activision: "Hey, lets make a new COD. Rehash that last one, which is about $0.10 worth of work. Ok, good. Now lets celebrate. TO THE STRIP SHOW!" And that's how that plays out.
TONY HAWK it's sad. They also focus too much on graphics, hardcore processing, that "wow" factor, etc. and fail to make anything that's an advancement in gaming itself beyond how it looks. It's why Nintendo produces some of the best games of each generation, because they're effectively defining and expanding on a great formula and implementing it in new ways, because they have to, because they are a step behind in much of the tech. The other consoles squander it all in the graphics for the most part. Yeah, they still get some great games as well, but a lot of it is just the same BS, and Nintendo is mostly aimed at the family market, so they lack appeal to more mature gamers... so everyone just ends up unhappy? Cool.
I think, instead of quantity. The Video Game industry should focus more on quality. You know, quality gameplay, quality plotline, quality world(not vast and boring like no man sky). I personally have no trouble playing in a much smaller area, as long as i enjoy the hell out of it.
Games take so much money to make because the advertising. And that is a result of an oversaturation of the gaming industry with Triple A titles. I don't feel bad for them at all because if these publishers are going to dish out game after game and make it harder for games to stand out the advertising cost is their own fault. Also, sequels are getting cheaper and cheaper to make because reused assets. Look at Destiny 2, they didn't have to do even half the work of the original game, less concept art, less character modeling, less animations, less game assets. They still put in microtransactions even though development is less work and less $ but ya know, games are just so expensive to make...
This is really true for call of duty, a new game every year? It's fucking ridiculous how there's three call of duty games that all cost 50 dollars or more
Chase Crappel yea of course. There is no reason to feel bad for these fuckers because even if all what gameranx said in this video is true (It fucking isn't!!) they have made their beds themselves by focusing on bs like super fancy graphics and avertising. BTW he was exaggerating the cost of making the games, didnt talk about how these figures include marketting budgets also, how the profits have drastically improved from earlier times (so has risk) and so many more relevant points. One could almost accuse gameranx for having a soft spot for the industry execs who make millions, avoid taxes and then cry about how poor they are that they need to put in lootboxes in every game.
Yes they cost much more, but on the other hand games nowadays make much more money. So it's really not an excuse for microtransactions and season passes!
Archangel If a game was good then it would sell really well meaning that we should not have to pay for extra content wether that is a season pass or through micro transactions. I really hate when people defend aaa games when they include micro transactions. We all knew that eventually a big talk about it would happen and it happened with Star Wars last year but by the time EA release FIFA then people will have been brainwashed yet again into not only buying them but allowing them to get away with it
Falcon didn’t do his hw. Games don’t cost more to make. There are several researchers conducted that show games are cheaper to make these days. They just spend a shit ton of money on advertising. This vid deserves a down like
40 pounds(60 dollars)for COD ww2 and then you see guns like the german rifle locked...are you fucking kidding me?? In a ww2 game you have to buy a common gun that has being used in ww2.
@Shadow_Reaper428 expecting an even more absurd return because of the choices you approved by focus groups and marketing trends and not for any sort of passion for the industry. Yeah, they're indeed greedy.
Juan Correa I mean... Mass Effect Andromeda costs over $40 mil and was a hot pile of shit, while the average AAA game is in the $100mil range. $47 mil budget for a GREAT game, and being a brand new IP with cutting-edge graphics, is a huge achievement.
I don't think games needs to be open world all the time. I mean The Evil Within 1 or The Last of Us not to mention BioShock these are great game and not open world. So you don't have to have an open world all the time. Now if you want to make an open world Horizon zero Dawn is a perfect example just right. So I agree we don't need huge open world and if you want to add more that's what DLCs for. But this is just my opinion.
You are kind of right as open worlds make you bored as well, for example in assasin creed there is nothing to do when you finish all of the story. Its just waste of storage nothing else
Anax Statements yeah I agree these big empty open world games are taking up too much space on ur hard drives. Which makes use make that tough choice what game are we willing to sacrifice 2 download your new game.
Linear games, especially horror games which are nothing but walking through a movie basically, I usually find boring. Reason is I can usually guess what will happen before it happens most of the time, much like with movies. It use to piss off my wife because we would watch a movie, neither of us had watched before, and I would guess what was going to happen next and I was usually right 99% of the time. I stopped talking when watching movies after that because like they say "if she ain't happy, you ain't happy". Games like The Evil Within 2 made me laugh more than most comedies. Scariest part of that game was when the ladies face appeared in the video at the start of the game, just got funnier from there. Don't have this issue when it comes to open world games. Maybe because "what will happen" is determined by my choice instead of some game developers pre-set (and easily guessed) decision.
You are right about maps size. When i started playing horizon i was blown away by how big that map is and how much populated it is. There isnt single place on thap map that feels empty. There is always something that gives me feel that i am not alone here. I have platinum trophy in this game and somwthing about 50+ hours of gameplay and its still fun. But when you take Just Cause 3 the map is considered to be one of the biggest maps in game but after 3 hours of playing i was bored. Yes its big but you get frustrated when you have to travel 20 min on jet acros to map and all you encounter is one npc in vehicle. Games should stay small and full of live not big and empty.
Benjamin I disagree Horizon has a beautiful world no doubt about it, however most of it felt 80% filled with machines. Just Cause 3’s World was bland as well, personally I had fun with it due to getting the authorities to follow me while car surfing.
Having large empty areas oft helps with the feel of authenticity, look towards assassin's creed origins, it's just as much fun traversing the unpopulated areas of the map as it is the populated areas. Also, I ran into the mushroom stone :) beauty
Complexity Inc. It's a post apocalyptic earth. it's suppose to be filled with machines because the Horizon zero dawn project is how it rebuilds the planet earth. It's explained in the story. Don't wanna spoil too much.
CroneRaven1810 I know all this I rushed through the story( personally it was bad) but because hunting machines was fun I oft had little problems of so many machines.
Buy 780 used. It's so worth it. I have mine and I preorder final fantasy 15. I can play most games on max settings and it won't cost you as much as 1060.
shivanash bhola Are you high? Like legit you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't spread false lies. 780 is still good. If you want to do higher than 1080p I would agree. If you think it won't play all the games coming out you are lying to yourself. Stick to your Stop Negative Thoughts. Because that is all you are doing.
One thing I think we also need to start doing is separating AAA games even further. There is a difference between companies like Ninja Theory, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, etc. and companies like Infinity Ward, Treyarch, DICE, etc. And that difference is the publisher. Some dev companies are able to make great game experiences for less because they aren't owned by a horrible publisher that just sees dollar signs and nothing else. Another is also removing marketing costs when talking about these, which I know is probably impossible since those big companies won't typically say how much they specifically spent on marketing. I am sure even the marketing cost for Horizon: Zero Dawn was a lot less than that of Battlefront 2.
Games do cost more to make than a decade ago and the price of games should be increase, yes. Extra Credits actually did an episode on this last Wednesday. But there is still a ton of money that seems to be sunk into some games that doesn't even seem to return anything in comparison to others. Hellblade cost under $9 million to make and Horizon cost around $47 million. And neither of those are just cheaply slapped together budget games. In comparison Modern Warfare 2, which came out in 2009, said it had a production budget of around $45 million and a total launch cost including global distribution and marketing at $200 million. I can't find exact prices, but I see things saying CoD: WWII and Battlefront 2 both cost over $100 million to make. So why can some companies create amazing game experiences for "cheap" while the big AAA developers owned by the big publishers seem to have to sink $100+ million and give us arguably the same amount of content?
Karom Enough to be certain that Red Dead Redemption 2 will be astonishingly amazing and GTA 6 will be incomprehensibly great. If they aren’t then I’ll be wondering where my money went.
As a Business major and business standpoint, one of the key things is inflation and allocation of the resources. Thing is, some people are running it as a business rather than an art medium, companies need to make a profit rather than cater to the customer (only make them come crawling back). The indie scene runs it as a passion project mostly, and focus on quality.whereas the larger companies dilute the quality over time. Allocating those resources with the bigger teams, goes to the marketing giving less to the artists and developers. I feel with a smaller team it makes balancing create quality
So you are basically explaining that if i buy a potato,i will have to pay in order to unlock as well so that i can eat it because the business needs to make profit
So, you mean every game developer should treat their employees like slaves just so your game costs less than $60? Not sure if that is what you meant but that's what I got from it. If so I hope you realize the problem with that kind of mentality.
Employees get to choose for whom they work. Perhaps it's not an ideal employment arrangement, as consumers its not our job to worry about employment laws... If EA has the happiest employees in the world yet continues to churn out bullshit games which one affects you more? Doesn't change what they were able to achieve with a limited budget and staffing numbers.
YOU (and I) WISH. Most AAA games are there for profit for the investors these days. Not made for consumers. a Its a god-send we have developers who care about the product theyre making..
You guys should look up Larian studios and Divinity Original Sin 2, they added races, spells, monsters and even quests based on the fans' feedback and wishes from the previous game in that franchise.
NekoCloaker Actually only casuals need carebearing. Listening to your community is one thing, adding unnecesary features to milk it is failed logic to begin with and no ammount of "listening" will fix it bc it simply never was about the game itself.
NekoCloaker they're usually more or less restricted by the publisher. That's completely fair since they pay for the making of the game. They just should do it with customers in mind.
I remember reading on the internet how the first Unreal was produced by 3-4 guys in Canada and a music composer paid by Epic Games. They made a revolutionary game and had a lot of success for an era ''1999'' where most people didn't have computers at all or strong enough to run a game. Their Second game was awarded many times, also as game of the year. And now they became an obsulete game company, industrialized. Proof of what you said on the vídeo. Many marketing and people working, but most lacking the essence of their products and fanbase
This video is summed up in "There are more people working on projects." There are no other real talking points. Falcon just repeats the same thing over and over. There are no real numbers at all in this video besides "x made y amount of moneys." Speculation after speculation. I don't think I've ever really fully disliked a video. The only reason why they cost more is cause the big companies have manipulated us to believe that we want all the marketing bullshit they push.
The inflation argument does not stand well when you include three factors: -The massive surge in popularity of games makes the tribulations of inflation moot -The cost of creating a physical copy has gone down. You aren't creating a chunky plastic box with a card inside anymore. You've got more and more people going digital. -Games industries are making more a shit load more money now then they were in the 90s.
phantom steel That’s counter intuitive. If you wanted to make the most profit from a game you would want the cost to produce the game to be as low as possible so it would take less sales to break even and make a profit.
Activision lol EVERY publisher wants your money... Some of them make you seem like they actually care (CD Project Red) and you believe them and that is how you become easy target and they win.
Matic Retar At least CDPR don't rip you off and actually deliver. Win-win situation, except for the developers but it's their choice to keep working there.
Is it a coincident that Jimquisition and gameranx just uploadeda video about the same topic on the same day? But Jimquisition is closing on to this topic fromthe exact oposite direction. :D
I think this is one of your best videos, you really show your point of view about gaming budget and development decisions, i couldnt agree more! I wish more people thought this way too, congrats gameranx!
Scale down the games and make concentrated experiences. Don't put everything into one game when it doesn't need it.With the budget of one bloated AAA game that tries to appeal to everyone, you could make two or three smaller, more thought-out games that would gain both sales and fanbase from a wider audience, giving you more options for future profits. In other words, stop being so greedy EA, Activision etc.
because its stupidly expensive and the market interested in games are not the same who watch the Superbowl except for the well-known games but then whats the point.
It cost $50 million per 30 secs that's pretty expensive marketing, plus it's probably the wrong demographic of people unless your promoting an NFL game.
billybobjoe0976 it was advertised somewhere as $50 million saw it on news in any case $6 million is still pretty dear for half a minute especially if your game is only $50 million to make.
It's because of marketing, the production cost has very little to do with the size of content. The Witcher 3 only cost $81 million while GTA 5 costs $265 million. Most EA and Activison games also cost over $100 games despite their underwhelming content.
There's a reason EA, Activison and Ubisoft don't give out budget figures. They just spend a grand porting nearly everything from previous games recycling yearly.
Is there ANY video that only ONE site does? Especially when a video has to do with a certain opinion. Honestly whatever site you "think" did whatever video first, there were probably a few other sites you don't know of that actually did. Only sites that have unique content are sites like HISHE that have content that they actually create themselves, and is copyrighted by it's creator (I assume).
But, there’s a difference between doing something that has been done in the past, and doing something that has been 2 other creators within the span of a week. Yes, of course nothing’s original, but 3 in 1 week? There’s obviously been strong influence there.
First of all: Great video!! Second of all: I think you prove a really good point, in the sense of marketing and game creation. Last of all: You guys at gameranx are awesome! You always look at things from everyones POV, and the videos you make are all great, especially ones like this one. Keep up the good work!
Horizon's world was exquisitely executed! The Textures were masterfully created and show massive amounts of detail no matter if you are on PS4 Pro or Standard. The map and how they designed it, is a marvel in of itself. The world is surprisingly small but the way the developers used lighting and environmental fog, the game looks and feels much bigger than it actually is.
Recently I have been playing some older JRPGs, and came to the realization of how they balance telling a story with a large map to explore: methods of transportation. I know, it seems obvious. What could be more iconic for the genre than airships? But just think: If you were given one right at the start, you'd be able to go everywhere... It would be an open world game! Instead, the games start you off on foot. You might have a few options for exploration, but in the beginning you are pretty limited. Then you get a boat or something, and suddenly your exploration options have expanded, but there are still places you can't go to yet. Further in, you get the tried and true airship. Now you can explore pretty much everywhere, like places beyond stormy waters or surrounded by mountains. Of course, if you need even more exploration, add in more methods of transportation. Have a submarine for an underwater map. A drilling vehicle isn't boring if there's a whole world underground. Maybe you'd rather pierce the heavens with a spaceship? Basically what I'm saying is, instead of having massive open worlds available to the player all at once, use game progression to give players an expanding world. Players will feel rewarded by finding secrets and whatnot in optional areas using the tools they earn as the game progresses. A "sense of pride and accomplishment", if you will. Huge stretches of barren nothing is essentially a waste of AAA budget. No one's favorite part of Ocarina of Time is rolling across Hyrule Field. "Linear" games can use this method, too. It could consist of several levels that are smaller open areas. Similar to Mario Odyssey.
Scully They really try to trick players into believing that micro transactions are neccassary for game development beyond release. They are not. Everyone who purchases them are to blame for a poor excuse of a game.
DUDE!! Keep making videos like this. You made me and every gamer feel much better. We aren’t alone and I hope the game publishers watch this video and think smarter!
I feel like y'all left out some very significant factors. The larger companies like EA, ubisoft have hundreds to thousands of employees, significant investment into physical assets, and employees who don't work on the games. HR staff, marketing staff etc. All of these things cost money which consists of the "manufacturing" overhead costs of the company. The company allocates these costs to the products they release, namely the games. I doubt that the quoted budget for gta5 is the true cost to produce the game, but rather the combination of actual production costs with an allocated portion of overhead. No doubt that games are more expensive to produce now as the tech and expectations advance, just some other factors to consider with it
I prefer a small world that feels big over a big world that feels small. Morrowind is a perfect example of a game that isnt that big but it feels huge. Kenshi is an example of a game that is huge but feels small.
Sometimes scale is important like in witcher 3 it was a big game and i discovered every single place in it and take me more than 500 hours and i still want more plus long games are good for people who can't buy a lot of games they can buy a game and take them one month or more to finish it and that is good to help them save money
The witcher 3 was just done right map size plus great characters and story makes a long game enjoyable. The witcher 3 is one of the few games where I think DLCs were acceptable because they were actually worth it.
Mohamad Abdi Ghani, yes, of course not everyone can replay those games without getting bored, but that is the whole issue. They want everyone to play it, so they dumb it down till it has nothing left in the way of depth... That is also why those games that do not pander to the masses are so succesfull.
Just talking with my friends and fellow gamers, it seems everyone is becoming more and more aware of the minimally dense open world marketing gimmick and are burning out of the genre because of such. That’s a great point you brought up, Falcon!
#IndiesAreTheFuture Indies are cheaper to make, and as a result are cheaper. However they are usually very high quality, as shown with titles like Stardew Valley, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge. I'm glad the Switch is getting so many Indies instead of the next £60 Call of Duty world war infinite or whatever. Six, £10 indies could probably get me so much more enjoyment with a variety of different and creative playstyles.
Complexity Inc. Indies are cheaper to make, and as a result are cheaper. However they are usually very high quality, as shown with titles like Stardew Valley, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge. I'm glad the Switch is getting so many Indies instead of the next £60 Call of Duty world war infinite or whatever. Six, £10 indies could probably get me so much more enjoyment with a variety of different and creative playstyles. EDIT: Fuck it, I'm pasting this onto my original comment.
thebigcheese3000 I was going to say this. People say half of all AAA games are mediocre and act like most Indie games are good, but they literally churn out hundreds of Indie games a month and realistically less than 1% are actually good. You can list dozens of good Indie games, but don't forget that thousands are released every year. I think they did a video once that showed Steam released something like 800 games in one month before...
I think that scaling back would actually be a good idea. With less available land to populate, you can focus on condensing the areas you populate and make the world seem more alive. Skyrim vs Breath of the Wild. Breath of the Wild has shrines and wondering NPCs that appear along the paths. Other than that and gathering resources and fighting the occasional mini boss that appear in set areas, most of the game is just open nothing. It can get boring real fast. Skyrim has a lot of open nothing, but there are plenty of caves and bandit camps dotted around the game. There is also the chance that you can start a quest chain by popping into one of these dungeons dotted around the world. If we had a game that had the melee combat of Zelda Breath of the Wild with the condensed population of Skyrim that would be great.
I think Horizon did it perfectly where they don't tell you how large it is. I mean when I hear a lot of devs go 'The game is blah blah blah size' I get skeptical cause it sounds like they are trying to fill your head with the illusion that that entire space is packed with stuff to do when it usually turns out that that isn't the case. Whereas if you get an open world game without that knowledge, hours in you figure out if you're immeresed via how lived in & active the world is & vice versa. And if its the later, it usually makes the game feel bigger than it really is, except for the weird drawback where it's so fun that you want more. But that last point can't really be helped no matter how big your gameworld map is; if its loads of fun, people will always want more
Jcr Aka Speirs Yes, many more people know of Gta which is why it makes more money. It’s is also hard to compare when they are not made by the same devs as well. I imagine red dead 2 will sell really well.
Different games and different devs, but same window of time to make the game. The quality of PoE greatly outstrips gta in every place except graphics. If you want to be that picky about it though, san andreas was way better than 5 with a fraction of the budget and it gave us a bigger world with more content.
Except that's an opinion and PoE is a niche market there's a reason why GTA V is practically the king of making money almost selling a billion dollars worth of profit
IMHO the greatest thing about this channel is when falcon makes pure art like this piece or the previous video on single player games. Its like pinkie and the brain to Animaniacs.
this might be the first Gameranx vid where I felt like you actually did some homework and covered all your bases. good stuff. AAA games these days blow 90% or more of their budget on making their game look *marginally* better. Ever heard of the 80-20 rule? the first 20% of work gets you 80% there, but it takes 80% of the work to fit in that last 20% of visual value. While graphics and animation are great, we really need to stop rewarding studios for wasting so much money on them. Spend the first 20%, and then put the rest into user EXPERIENCE ie, performance, gameplay mechanics, and dedicated servers for multiplayer
Very well said, Falcon. Can we all agree that some companies don't really know what gamers want? They just come up with "reasons" to justify their greed. Those "reasons" might sound reasonable sometimes but not most of the time. We have to analyze their business model before we decide to purchase any game from now on because while most companies try to come up with games that gamers actually enjoy, some companies just try to maximize profit to keep investors coming - in other words, investors > gamers. Sure it is generally THE business goal, but in entertainment industry (like video game industry), they gotta prioritize gamers to maximize their profit. So what's the problem here? many gamers (specifically those 10 "casual" gamers who spend at least $1000 on lootboxes) aren't aware. Now those AAA gaming companies only prioritize those 10 gamers because us, millions of gamer, never actually pay for those loot boxes. Last words, I promise, Just don't support them by not buying any of their game. And let's just hope they don't go bankrupt before they actually made profit again with actual good games.
There is nothing wrong with games costing a lot to make as long it is good & advancing in graphics,sound quality, gameplay, variety etc etc. Keep getting better.
Tdizz only thing i hate about that game is that u need to play Around 24,6 hours of ranked to be able to buy one character. Ubisoft never suprises me with Their bullshit to make ppl buy microtransactions
Theo Jonsson Yeah this annoys me as well and the fact that you cannot transfer your account to pc or to other console in order to get your operators that you paid for
Anax Statements IMO it should Come with all operators so everyone is at fair play in competerive IF all characters were included with game id play it 10x How much i do rn
I would pay $60 for a game equivalent to an old PS2 game. If its as good as Jak and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank, I would pay for it. No heavy graphics, no giant open worlds. Just a good and fun game. Thats what alot of consumers and game devs dont get. Its not about graphics. Its about game-play and aesthetic. I say consumers, because people will still fall for a bad game aslong as it looks pretty. Heck, i use to fall for it all the time. (buying all the new cods, battlefront 1 etc. without figuring out if it was actually good or not first)
Finished watching. It's about business sense. They have come to see customers as there, as truly captive no matter what. Which is how they justify their hollywood budgets; technology is getting cheaper, not more expensive. Nowadays you can actually do more with less, but AAA *publishers* do not want you to know this. Also, for a $250M game, justifying $200M in marketing expense therefore requiring free to play models despite being sold at full price is nonsense
Have you guys ever looked at studios like Bohemia Interactive and what they've done with Arma 3? They are still producing high quality content for a game originally released back in 2013. And for most of us, those DLCs were included when we purchased the main APEX DLC, which included basically an entire other game's worth of content for like $30 on Steam: new huge and detailed environments, weapons, character models, objects, etc. They also provide crazy support for the modding community which has probably produced about as much content by now as the original game devs. You might try asking them about their business model. They seem to be pretty open about their development processes with the community. I'd be curious to see how they manage to do it. Despite criticisms over performance issues (the game is heavily CPU bound to 1-2 cores), Arma 3 has a very dedicated following and the vast majority of us want to see Bohemia Interactive succeed in their endeavors. We've been itching for news of a better optimized Arma 4 for years while they're still producing content for Arma 3 five years down the road.
AND anyone who thinks that's wrong doesn't understand business or marketing. You do realize marketing convinced a whole population of people that purchasing something they get for free was a good idea, bottled water. Also it was marketing that convinced a whole generation of gamers that purchasing nothing (digital content) was a good idea. Don't underestimate the power of marketing. It has manipulated you and everyone else in this world when it comes to purchases, what you do in your spare time, it has even made the decision of who you vote for while convincing you that it was you who made that decision.
+Lalo 2k7 nowadays and even since the mid 2000s marketing is at the very least half the budget of AAA games... hell CoD MW2 costed 50 million dollars to make, but it's marketing costed 200 million.....
One thing a lot of these developers and publishers have to cut back on big time is marketing. It's almost as expensive if not more than the actual games development. In this day and age, we don't need to have this kind of hardcore marketing like we did in previous console generations. We have social media, and our gaming culture revolves mostly around it these days, it's the best place to advertise to hardcore and casual audiences. We as gamer's practically advertise these games for these companies by constantly talking about them, for better or for worse.
SCORPIONFURY There is a thing called inflation? Norway currency doesnt exactly means the exact ammount you paid for. In your case and your country it was deflation. The value is still the same as the other countries. The company doesnt make any more money only the government.
Smh. It seriously requires hundreds millions of dollars to optimize computing power and algorithms in video games? I don’t believe that. I loved you Gameranx smh please stop manipulating me....
Big game companies CAN do it, they just WON'T .. because money.. and popularity..? Even though most of those companies used to do greater things with less.. Also if a game investment costs 50 million to make and they profit say 200 million.. then they repay the investment a juicy 150 million.. actually.. nevermind.. this is a stupid thought.. and even if I really tried to understand and was able to calculate the numbers.. it still wouldn't make sense.. except for.. capitalism..right..?
+DvS Dragon yeah, but for a AAA game to be truly profitable it has to make 2.5-3.0X times the money it costed to develop. First it has to break even, second it needs to make another 1.1-1.2x times the money for the next game, third it has to make money for the publisher, fourth it has to make enough money so that it has enough money if the next game is a failure and fifth it has to compensate for any other lack luster game that has been published by the publisher and considering that the average AAA game sells 3-5 million copies it's hard at 60$.
Regardless of all kinds of calculations we can do or find out.. Big triple A game companies have big names and even bigger franchises that make tons of money anyway, yet somehow .. somewhere.. There are a bunch of corporate leaders, critics and company limitations they have to live with.. Most of which who require the games to be the popular money making titles with added guarantees they make at least a certain amount of money. Mind you, I'm not saying all companies are that bad.. some or in between or just create whatever they hell they want and still succeed. I just feel like most of the games created back then had way more heart and "content" even by big name company standards.. lately it's just all about the paycheck and not the entertainment value but that's just my point of view.
+DvS Dragon yeah you are thinking of the 10 biggest companies and that's it and they barely make it... As I said you need to make 3.0x times(or even 4.0x times) what the game costed(including the marketing) and when a 2-3 year development cycle of a AAA game costs 100 million dollars you need to make 300-400 million dollars, which is 5 to 7.5 million copies sold AT 60$ and they have to sell them fast, they can't wait a year to sell that many games... they need to sell that many within a month... And most AAA games sell between 3-5 million copies and they are never guaranteed to succeed and the next game is never guaranteed to succeed...
Ooh, a video online. (sarcasm) Well that must be the truth then. (more sarcasm) I'm sure Jim is just a math genius that's why he's, a, doing videos online? (even more sa.... well you know)
I'm a huge open world fan. 90% of the games I have on my machine are open world games. Now, my view is, there is no need to downscale...the bigger and longer the world and story, the better, so long as they satisfy two conditions...they create quality worlds which are diverse, visually stunning, impressively occupied and have things to do that are worth my time. Second, they deliver stories that are memorable, thought-provoking and overwhelmingly repeatable. It might sound like a lot to expect, but with the budgets these huge companies are working under, I feel that we should be expecting much more than what I just mentioned.
Falcon nailed it, there are different models that exist that work very well outside the AAA setup. Smarter not harder, or in this case smarter not bigger.
To me, games need to focus less on trend setting/following and more on "What Makes Special". Horizon Zero Dawn was great because despite it being sparsely populated by human NPCs, there were animals and machines everywhere. The world wasn't all that large but it didn't need to be. The biggest problem with super huge open worlds is you fall into one of two traps. Either it's 90% barren landscape with a few towns and enemies scattered about or there's so much there you'll never explore it all. Bethesda ends up in both at the same time. Big =/= Quality, Quality = Quality
Gr8 video. Two things, first is yu guys had made a video abt things we believe about game developers that are not true and one of the points was that game developers are not rich, but with GTA V making $800 mil in profits, I find it still hard to believe. Second, I want hands like Aloy (don't know if this is spelled right) from Horizon Zero Dawn, for her to slide down that long shaft or rope and came off unflinched, her hands must have been forged in the deepest pits of tartarus lol
Falcon is like that cool uncle who teaches you the world of gaming but you can't ask to buy you a game
chuck _ valdez LMAO
Well not a 60 dollar one at least
poor guy. never had a brother
chuck _ valdez right?!
Uncle Falcon? I like the sound of that.
The real question is why are most AAA games so mediocre
Exactly
OB3 STA Because the work is so spread out between tons of dofferent people, different ideas clash and some things dont "fit" together. Sometime a game needs to be rushed out to make money, (understandable, but still a shit move), etc.
Because they don't know how to effectively spend the big amounts of money, it all goes into marketing and cramping up the visuals.
Yeah you spend your precious 60 dollars and then 6/10 times it's gonna be a huge disappointment nowadays
That's why you give the game 4-6 months and the price will drop,or wait a year and get the all the dlc plus the game for the same price when it 1st dropped
Life of a black tiger was a game that i thought deserved a bigger budget..............................tiger should have been a falcon
i bought that game, lol
Yeah, i mean Life of Pi gets a budget but Life of a Black Tiger doesnt? Racist much? Idk........ but shit needs to stop
Moangus PIckard no
Why are games hard to make? Because it’s hard to convince people that your game isn’t shit nowadays
JOANY you’re right
Except most are or have shitty milking features nowadays
JOANY That’s just about every EA game ever.
Simple, they spend more than 60% of the budget *likely more* on marketing, they've been going so over the top with it. Doing brand deals, on every single bill board, bus stops, ads before a movie in cinema's and on TV. That shit adds up fast. The making of games themselves has gone DOWN in cost. renting engines, cheaper tech, higher tech. So on.
SadisticNemesis even if that is true they kinda have to because there are thousands of games coming out each day and they want to get the gamers attention
Or just release the VC on Switch with GC support. Add better 3rd party support to add games like Bioshock, and watch the entire Game Industry crash. Meanwhile, we still have those thousands of games to play and Nintendo to just give us what we really want. Bishock and Metroid Prime on the go.
I Love How The entire video is wrong since of this it should be: WHY GAMES MARKETING COSTS SOO MUCH
This is exactly what I was thinking. For what I known, the biggest part of the budget of AAA games goes to marketing. It's sad cause it kinda invalidates the whole point of the video.
Making life size titans in Berlin that would add up
TL; DR - mismanagement and an inability to downsize, along with game developers/publishers firing anyone and everyone.
I hate games with too big and empty maps. I also hate too short games(5 hours).
Medium size, populated with all kinds of things and a lot to do, is the way to go!
Lucian Andries that is gta
Get prototype
assassins creed origins gives us that
the amont of things exist in ac origins is insane. it took me. 1/half day to finish it. they force you to play side quests too
At least use the f edit button!
All games with MT and luck-based lootboxes should be rated AO by the ESRB. Adults only, 18+, require photo ID to purchase. It's 100% gambling to have luck based lootboxes in your games. I'm sure a lot of publishers wouldn't put lootboxes in their games if that was the case.
RemixedVoice sadly most governments around the world won’t consider them as such which is are allowed to get away with it. I also think buying in game currency to get things is just as bad, whilst you know what you are getting some games try to hide how much each of their own currency is worth purely because they want you to buy the more expensive packs.
RemixedVoice and driving license
RemixedVoice the line between gambling and lootboxes is that you always get something with lootboxes even if you don't want it while with gambling you can loose everything
RemixedVoice yeah
@ShadenR Okay, if I make a slot machine that always gives you atleast 1 cent, it is not gambling anymore because you always get something? NICE. I just found a way circumvent gambling laws. Time to make some money out of kids.
My primary issue with game size is when it feels artificial. If the world is small, make it feel real. If the world is large, make it feel real.
I remember playing games like Oblivion and Skyrim and I would be running for my life after trying to take on an enemy I couldn't handle only to smack right into an invisible wall.
Here I am running through a large forest only to discover the forest was an illusion.
I don't care how big a world is, just make it feel real.
Justin Goolsby Oblivion: Good game, i used to eat so many rats at one of the series, the one with the king
Bethesda LOVES their invisible walls, it's how they tell you the map boundaries. I would've thought they learned something from Obsidian, NV used the terrain itself, two fences and a water barrier to denote the boundaries, no invisible "you can't go this way" walls.
It's simple. The cost is down to getting drunk.
Activision: "Hey, lets make a new COD. Rehash that last one, which is about $0.10 worth of work. Ok, good. Now lets celebrate. TO THE STRIP SHOW!"
And that's how that plays out.
TONY HAWK That's the single best comment I've read today...
And from what I've been told on other videos, a lot of marketing investment can be claimed as a tax writeoff.
They are sneaky
TONY HAWK it's sad. They also focus too much on graphics, hardcore processing, that "wow" factor, etc. and fail to make anything that's an advancement in gaming itself beyond how it looks. It's why Nintendo produces some of the best games of each generation, because they're effectively defining and expanding on a great formula and implementing it in new ways, because they have to, because they are a step behind in much of the tech. The other consoles squander it all in the graphics for the most part. Yeah, they still get some great games as well, but a lot of it is just the same BS, and Nintendo is mostly aimed at the family market, so they lack appeal to more mature gamers... so everyone just ends up unhappy? Cool.
using the same engine has its perks. nothing new so nothing to fix and it still makes bank
I feel like that conversation took place shortly after the first COD was a success.
AAA developers also don't need to hire famous actors to do the voice work. I can't imagine that's cheap.
I think, instead of quantity. The Video Game industry should focus more on quality. You know, quality gameplay, quality plotline, quality world(not vast and boring like no man sky). I personally have no trouble playing in a much smaller area, as long as i enjoy the hell out of it.
Games take so much money to make because the advertising. And that is a result of an oversaturation of the gaming industry with Triple A titles. I don't feel bad for them at all because if these publishers are going to dish out game after game and make it harder for games to stand out the advertising cost is their own fault. Also, sequels are getting cheaper and cheaper to make because reused assets. Look at Destiny 2, they didn't have to do even half the work of the original game, less concept art, less character modeling, less animations, less game assets. They still put in microtransactions even though development is less work and less $ but ya know, games are just so expensive to make...
Chase Crappel And yet people still purchase them
This is really true for call of duty, a new game every year? It's fucking ridiculous how there's three call of duty games that all cost 50 dollars or more
Chase Crappel yea of course. There is no reason to feel bad for these fuckers because even if all what gameranx said in this video is true (It fucking isn't!!) they have made their beds themselves by focusing on bs like super fancy graphics and avertising. BTW he was exaggerating the cost of making the games, didnt talk about how these figures include marketting budgets also, how the profits have drastically improved from earlier times (so has risk) and so many more relevant points. One could almost accuse gameranx for having a soft spot for the industry execs who make millions, avoid taxes and then cry about how poor they are that they need to put in lootboxes in every game.
Fun fact: no one gives a shit if you're first or early
exactly
Bet this video was inspired by Extra credits and Jimquisition
"inspired"
They got “inspired”
Lin Huichi
it’s an important topic
I was thinking the same thing lol.
Good thing I don't watch them.
Yes they cost much more, but on the other hand games nowadays make much more money. So it's really not an excuse for microtransactions and season passes!
Archangel If a game was good then it would sell really well meaning that we should not have to pay for extra content wether that is a season pass or through micro transactions. I really hate when people defend aaa games when they include micro transactions. We all knew that eventually a big talk about it would happen and it happened with Star Wars last year but by the time EA release FIFA then people will have been brainwashed yet again into not only buying them but allowing them to get away with it
Falcon didn’t do his hw. Games don’t cost more to make. There are several researchers conducted that show games are cheaper to make these days. They just spend a shit ton of money on advertising. This vid deserves a down like
40 pounds(60 dollars)for COD ww2 and then you see guns like the german rifle locked...are you fucking kidding me?? In a ww2 game you have to buy a common gun that has being used in ww2.
So you want the amount of money your are REQUIRED to pay raised?
Satryadhamma Putra Go see Jim Sterlings video about this topic and find out that it's a lie. Extra Credit is wrong sorry...
what has 4-6 wheels and flies?
a garbage truck
Armen Manukyan aight?
Armen Manukyan 😂😂🤣🤣
Nice one
Armen Manukyan I dont get it...
Omg you got me!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😭😂😂lol jk lmao 😭😭🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😅😅😅😅soooo fudging funny!!!!!! Omfg I’m dying😂🤣😂
So what he is trying to say is: Smaller Open World ==> Less People needed ==> Less money needed
one word for it : GREED
ah no
Yeah sounds logical. Invest an absurd amount of money into one game. Sounds sooooooooooo greedy.
Triple AYYYYY greed
@Shadow_Reaper428 expecting an even more absurd return because of the choices you approved by focus groups and marketing trends and not for any sort of passion for the industry. Yeah, they're indeed greedy.
grow up, we all need greed to survive and live.
I really loved Horizon Zero Dawn... i cant believe it was only 47m to make, thats insane!
The BatMeth only 47 million lol
Juan Correa compared to the 2 to 5 hundred million dollars other devs shell out to make games, 47 is pocket change.
I thought you said it was only 47 minuets to make lol
Skm3r oh no then we'd all have some questions, lol
Juan Correa I mean... Mass Effect Andromeda costs over $40 mil and was a hot pile of shit, while the average AAA game is in the $100mil range. $47 mil budget for a GREAT game, and being a brand new IP with cutting-edge graphics, is a huge achievement.
I don't think games needs to be open world all the time. I mean The Evil Within 1 or The Last of Us not to mention BioShock these are great game and not open world. So you don't have to have an open world all the time. Now if you want to make an open world Horizon zero Dawn is a perfect example just right. So I agree we don't need huge open world and if you want to add more that's what DLCs for. But this is just my opinion.
You are kind of right as open worlds make you bored as well, for example in assasin creed there is nothing to do when you finish all of the story. Its just waste of storage nothing else
Anax Statements yeah I agree these big empty open world games are taking up too much space on ur hard drives. Which makes use make that tough choice what game are we willing to sacrifice 2 download your new game.
Linear games, especially horror games which are nothing but walking through a movie basically, I usually find boring. Reason is I can usually guess what will happen before it happens most of the time, much like with movies. It use to piss off my wife because we would watch a movie, neither of us had watched before, and I would guess what was going to happen next and I was usually right 99% of the time. I stopped talking when watching movies after that because like they say "if she ain't happy, you ain't happy". Games like The Evil Within 2 made me laugh more than most comedies. Scariest part of that game was when the ladies face appeared in the video at the start of the game, just got funnier from there. Don't have this issue when it comes to open world games. Maybe because "what will happen" is determined by my choice instead of some game developers pre-set (and easily guessed) decision.
You are right about maps size. When i started playing horizon i was blown away by how big that map is and how much populated it is. There isnt single place on thap map that feels empty. There is always something that gives me feel that i am not alone here. I have platinum trophy in this game and somwthing about 50+ hours of gameplay and its still fun. But when you take Just Cause 3 the map is considered to be one of the biggest maps in game but after 3 hours of playing i was bored. Yes its big but you get frustrated when you have to travel 20 min on jet acros to map and all you encounter is one npc in vehicle. Games should stay small and full of live not big and empty.
Benjamin I disagree Horizon has a beautiful world no doubt about it, however most of it felt 80% filled with machines. Just Cause 3’s World was bland as well, personally I had fun with it due to getting the authorities to follow me while car surfing.
Having large empty areas oft helps with the feel of authenticity, look towards assassin's creed origins, it's just as much fun traversing the unpopulated areas of the map as it is the populated areas.
Also, I ran into the mushroom stone :) beauty
Complexity Inc. It's a post apocalyptic earth. it's suppose to be filled with machines because the Horizon zero dawn project is how it rebuilds the planet earth. It's explained in the story. Don't wanna spoil too much.
CroneRaven1810 I know all this I rushed through the story( personally it was bad) but because hunting machines was fun I oft had little problems of so many machines.
What about Witcher 3? INCREDIBLE open world game.
Hey Gameranx I love your content and how lit y’all are.
I’m at school and I still watch these videos
same
I love falcon. His voice kinda reminds me of archer sometimes.
anybody else still waiting for gpu prices to drop?
Everyday, man... Everyday...
quanzer Nah I'm good. Got a 1060 when the prices reduced for 2 months. You should've made the call if you had the money.
Buy 780 used. It's so worth it. I have mine and I preorder final fantasy 15. I can play most games on max settings and it won't cost you as much as 1060.
shivanash bhola Are you high? Like legit you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't spread false lies. 780 is still good. If you want to do higher than 1080p I would agree. If you think it won't play all the games coming out you are lying to yourself. Stick to your Stop Negative Thoughts. Because that is all you are doing.
quanzer what a stupid question, you'd think someone here wants them to raise ?
One thing I think we also need to start doing is separating AAA games even further. There is a difference between companies like Ninja Theory, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, etc. and companies like Infinity Ward, Treyarch, DICE, etc. And that difference is the publisher. Some dev companies are able to make great game experiences for less because they aren't owned by a horrible publisher that just sees dollar signs and nothing else. Another is also removing marketing costs when talking about these, which I know is probably impossible since those big companies won't typically say how much they specifically spent on marketing. I am sure even the marketing cost for Horizon: Zero Dawn was a lot less than that of Battlefront 2.
Games do cost more to make than a decade ago and the price of games should be increase, yes. Extra Credits actually did an episode on this last Wednesday. But there is still a ton of money that seems to be sunk into some games that doesn't even seem to return anything in comparison to others. Hellblade cost under $9 million to make and Horizon cost around $47 million. And neither of those are just cheaply slapped together budget games. In comparison Modern Warfare 2, which came out in 2009, said it had a production budget of around $45 million and a total launch cost including global distribution and marketing at $200 million. I can't find exact prices, but I see things saying CoD: WWII and Battlefront 2 both cost over $100 million to make. So why can some companies create amazing game experiences for "cheap" while the big AAA developers owned by the big publishers seem to have to sink $100+ million and give us arguably the same amount of content?
Hi Falcon, it's folks.
I can't believe GTA V cost 265 million :O
Then again I spent a ton of money on that game :)
Rockstar got like a billion from the sales though
I'd like to know how much they made off of Shark Cards.
Karom Enough to be certain that Red Dead Redemption 2 will be astonishingly amazing and GTA 6 will be incomprehensibly great. If they aren’t then I’ll be wondering where my money went.
Armen Manukyan Rockstar made a billion just in first 3 days bro , it's been out for 5 years now.
bruh, they made one billion in 3 days.. Jesus 1 billion is NOTHING.
As a Business major and business standpoint, one of the key things is inflation and allocation of the resources. Thing is, some people are running it as a business rather than an art medium, companies need to make a profit rather than cater to the customer (only make them come crawling back). The indie scene runs it as a passion project mostly, and focus on quality.whereas the larger companies dilute the quality over time. Allocating those resources with the bigger teams, goes to the marketing giving less to the artists and developers. I feel with a smaller team it makes balancing create quality
Why use that lame wanna-be smart vocabulary to explain something simple? Lol
So you are basically explaining that if i buy a potato,i will have to pay in order to unlock as well so that i can eat it because the business needs to make profit
Juan Correa people on the bottom get paid less to show off the game instead of making it better
You must not need to take a lot of English classes to get a business degree...
Well can't really say much about COD since they make a game every fucking year.
thatoneguy from the internet but they spend 3 years making each game
Witcher 3 and what they managed to achieve on their budget also.
RelaxedRonin haven't u heard about cd projekt employee management problem?
So, you mean every game developer should treat their employees like slaves just so your game costs less than $60? Not sure if that is what you meant but that's what I got from it. If so I hope you realize the problem with that kind of mentality.
Employees get to choose for whom they work. Perhaps it's not an ideal employment arrangement, as consumers its not our job to worry about employment laws... If EA has the happiest employees in the world yet continues to churn out bullshit games which one affects you more? Doesn't change what they were able to achieve with a limited budget and staffing numbers.
What matters most in the end of the day is a great product not how much it is and how much it costs to make.
YOU (and I) WISH.
Most AAA games are there for profit for the investors these days. Not made for consumers. a
Its a god-send we have developers who care about the product theyre making..
It's both, get your head up your ass. Great product if it marketed poorly and cost too much budget will sold poorly.
You guys should look up Larian studios and Divinity Original Sin 2, they added races, spells, monsters and even quests based on the fans' feedback and wishes from the previous game in that franchise.
NekoCloaker Actually only casuals need carebearing. Listening to your community is one thing, adding unnecesary features to milk it is failed logic to begin with and no ammount of "listening" will fix it bc it simply never was about the game itself.
NekoCloaker they're usually more or less restricted by the publisher. That's completely fair since they pay for the making of the game. They just should do it with customers in mind.
I remember reading on the internet how the first Unreal was produced by 3-4 guys in Canada and a music composer paid by Epic Games. They made a revolutionary game and had a lot of success for an era ''1999'' where most people didn't have computers at all or strong enough to run a game. Their Second game was awarded many times, also as game of the year. And now they became an obsulete game company, industrialized. Proof of what you said on the vídeo. Many marketing and people working, but most lacking the essence of their products and fanbase
This video is summed up in "There are more people working on projects."
There are no other real talking points. Falcon just repeats the same thing over and over. There are no real numbers at all in this video besides "x made y amount of moneys." Speculation after speculation. I don't think I've ever really fully disliked a video.
The only reason why they cost more is cause the big companies have manipulated us to believe that we want all the marketing bullshit they push.
The inflation argument does not stand well when you include three factors:
-The massive surge in popularity of games makes the tribulations of inflation moot
-The cost of creating a physical copy has gone down. You aren't creating a chunky plastic box with a card inside anymore. You've got more and more people going digital.
-Games industries are making more a shit load more money now then they were in the 90s.
Cause activision wants your money
phantom steel That’s counter intuitive. If you wanted to make the most profit from a game you would want the cost to produce the game to be as low as possible so it would take less sales to break even and make a profit.
Activision lol EVERY publisher wants your money... Some of them make you seem like they actually care (CD Project Red) and you believe them and that is how you become easy target and they win.
at least in CoD WW2 its something really small like skins.
they dont want your money, they want all of the money
Matic Retar At least CDPR don't rip you off and actually deliver. Win-win situation, except for the developers but it's their choice to keep working there.
Is it a coincident that Jimquisition and gameranx just uploadeda video about the same topic on the same day? But Jimquisition is closing on to this topic fromthe exact oposite direction. :D
I think this is one of your best videos, you really show your point of view about gaming budget and development decisions, i couldnt agree more! I wish more people thought this way too, congrats gameranx!
Scale down the games and make concentrated experiences. Don't put everything into one game when it doesn't need it.With the budget of one bloated AAA game that tries to appeal to everyone, you could make two or three smaller, more thought-out games that would gain both sales and fanbase from a wider audience, giving you more options for future profits. In other words, stop being so greedy EA, Activision etc.
The music was just perfect when falcon was talking about characters and how they come to life
I'd always prefer a smaller world with more things to do, than a larger world.
I got a good idea for a video: Why Don’t They Announce Games At The Super Bowl?
GenosectKingRevived Yeah, that would have been dope to see a Blops 4 Teaser or something
because its stupidly expensive and the market interested in games are not the same who watch the Superbowl except for the well-known games but then whats the point.
It cost $50 million per 30 secs that's pretty expensive marketing, plus it's probably the wrong demographic of people unless your promoting an NFL game.
TheCosta5000 It was $6 million for a 30 second advert, not 50.
billybobjoe0976 it was advertised somewhere as $50 million saw it on news in any case $6 million is still pretty dear for half a minute especially if your game is only $50 million to make.
When i see Free game things in 60 bucks game i just refund it and got my wallet back haha
Peace so...your whole wallet contains 60$ damm you are poor
Jhin a blooming Flower oh you are damn well off 😂
Jhin a blooming Flower sorry by wallet what i mean is steam wallet haha
Jhin a blooming Flower 60 dollars is a lot if ur a college student
Jhin a blooming Flower he a broke ass Bic' LuL
It's because of marketing, the production cost has very little to do with the size of content. The Witcher 3 only cost $81 million while GTA 5 costs $265 million. Most EA and Activison games also cost over $100 games despite their underwhelming content.
No wonder valve isn't making half life 3.
Aymen 😂
It requires trillion dollars
Why would they? Valve makes insane money via steam, no need to make a half life three.
There's a reason EA, Activison and Ubisoft don't give out budget figures. They just spend a grand porting nearly everything from previous games recycling yearly.
This is a really _”original”_ video that I *totally* haven’t seen made by _anyone_ else in the last week...
Emperor Leachicus who...?
Emperor Leachicus jim sterling and.. Extra credits right?
Sam Reddig Gaming yeah
Is there ANY video that only ONE site does? Especially when a video has to do with a certain opinion. Honestly whatever site you "think" did whatever video first, there were probably a few other sites you don't know of that actually did. Only sites that have unique content are sites like HISHE that have content that they actually create themselves, and is copyrighted by it's creator (I assume).
But, there’s a difference between doing something that has been done in the past, and doing something that has been 2 other creators within the span of a week.
Yes, of course nothing’s original, but 3 in 1 week? There’s obviously been strong influence there.
First of all: Great video!!
Second of all: I think you prove a really good point, in the sense of marketing and game creation.
Last of all: You guys at gameranx are awesome! You always look at things from everyones POV, and the videos you make are all great, especially ones like this one.
Keep up the good work!
Persona 5 was reletively cheaper triple A game to make
Gentlemen Gamer how much?
Many stuff does not means high budget. P5 can substained it by focusing what it needs to be focused on instead of adding budget to pointless stuffs.
or they had old assets to use which drastically lowers budget costs methinks
Delimon007 Dude, compare P5 to P4 both graphically and model wise. Do it.
okay so they have a new engine, that still doesn't change the facts that they cut down on man hours using previous assets and ideas
Horizon's world was exquisitely executed! The Textures were masterfully created and show massive amounts of detail no matter if you are on PS4 Pro or Standard. The map and how they designed it, is a marvel in of itself. The world is surprisingly small but the way the developers used lighting and environmental fog, the game looks and feels much bigger than it actually is.
Size doesn't matter
Recently I have been playing some older JRPGs, and came to the realization of how they balance telling a story with a large map to explore: methods of transportation. I know, it seems obvious. What could be more iconic for the genre than airships? But just think: If you were given one right at the start, you'd be able to go everywhere... It would be an open world game!
Instead, the games start you off on foot. You might have a few options for exploration, but in the beginning you are pretty limited. Then you get a boat or something, and suddenly your exploration options have expanded, but there are still places you can't go to yet. Further in, you get the tried and true airship. Now you can explore pretty much everywhere, like places beyond stormy waters or surrounded by mountains. Of course, if you need even more exploration, add in more methods of transportation. Have a submarine for an underwater map. A drilling vehicle isn't boring if there's a whole world underground. Maybe you'd rather pierce the heavens with a spaceship?
Basically what I'm saying is, instead of having massive open worlds available to the player all at once, use game progression to give players an expanding world. Players will feel rewarded by finding secrets and whatnot in optional areas using the tools they earn as the game progresses. A "sense of pride and accomplishment", if you will. Huge stretches of barren nothing is essentially a waste of AAA budget. No one's favorite part of Ocarina of Time is rolling across Hyrule Field.
"Linear" games can use this method, too. It could consist of several levels that are smaller open areas. Similar to Mario Odyssey.
Yea so much money but no good campaign and all the lootboxes and microtransactions to pay back the poor content that was so expensive to make. Pls.
Scully They really try to trick players into believing that micro transactions are neccassary for game development beyond release. They are not. Everyone who purchases them are to blame for a poor excuse of a game.
DUDE!! Keep making videos like this. You made me and every gamer feel much better. We aren’t alone and I hope the game publishers watch this video and think smarter!
Once again another fantastic video
no, they're just out of ideas.
I feel like y'all left out some very significant factors. The larger companies like EA, ubisoft have hundreds to thousands of employees, significant investment into physical assets, and employees who don't work on the games. HR staff, marketing staff etc. All of these things cost money which consists of the "manufacturing" overhead costs of the company. The company allocates these costs to the products they release, namely the games. I doubt that the quoted budget for gta5 is the true cost to produce the game, but rather the combination of actual production costs with an allocated portion of overhead. No doubt that games are more expensive to produce now as the tech and expectations advance, just some other factors to consider with it
Because they like to pay themselves big wages.
I prefer a small world that feels big over a big world that feels small. Morrowind is a perfect example of a game that isnt that big but it feels huge. Kenshi is an example of a game that is huge but feels small.
Sometimes scale is important like in witcher 3 it was a big game and i discovered every single place in it and take me more than 500 hours and i still want more plus long games are good for people who can't buy a lot of games they can buy a game and take them one month or more to finish it and that is good to help them save money
The witcher 3 was just done right map size plus great characters and story makes a long game enjoyable. The witcher 3 is one of the few games where I think DLCs were acceptable because they were actually worth it.
Or just make an enjoyable game with replay value, like some games of old... Sadly this seems to be too hard for the AAA publishers...
Niels van Schooten reply value you mean like god of war or uncharted
Mohamad Abdi Ghani, yes, of course not everyone can replay those games without getting bored, but that is the whole issue. They want everyone to play it, so they dumb it down till it has nothing left in the way of depth... That is also why those games that do not pander to the masses are so succesfull.
Spicy boi DLC in The Witcher 3 is acceptable because they have shitty working conditions, I'd rather pay to support their overworked employees.
Just talking with my friends and fellow gamers, it seems everyone is becoming more and more aware of the minimally dense open world marketing gimmick and are burning out of the genre because of such. That’s a great point you brought up, Falcon!
Most of a games budget goes towards marketing. Which surprises me given omnipotent presence of the internet. I mean who watches TV anymore ?!?!
#IndiesAreTheFuture
Indies are cheaper to make, and as a result are cheaper. However they are usually very high quality, as shown with titles like Stardew Valley, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge.
I'm glad the Switch is getting so many Indies instead of the next £60 Call of Duty world war infinite or whatever.
Six, £10 indies could probably get me so much more enjoyment with a variety of different and creative playstyles.
Ganondorf Dragmire true that my dark lord, 2018 is my year of the indies
Indie Games have more variety
Complexity Inc.
Indies are cheaper to make, and as a result are cheaper. However they are usually very high quality, as shown with titles like Stardew Valley, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge.
I'm glad the Switch is getting so many Indies instead of the next £60 Call of Duty world war infinite or whatever.
Six, £10 indies could probably get me so much more enjoyment with a variety of different and creative playstyles.
EDIT: Fuck it, I'm pasting this onto my original comment.
LOL. The ratio of good indie games to shit is like 1:1000
thebigcheese3000 I was going to say this. People say half of all AAA games are mediocre and act like most Indie games are good, but they literally churn out hundreds of Indie games a month and realistically less than 1% are actually good. You can list dozens of good Indie games, but don't forget that thousands are released every year. I think they did a video once that showed Steam released something like 800 games in one month before...
I think that scaling back would actually be a good idea. With less available land to populate, you can focus on condensing the areas you populate and make the world seem more alive.
Skyrim vs Breath of the Wild.
Breath of the Wild has shrines and wondering NPCs that appear along the paths. Other than that and gathering resources and fighting the occasional mini boss that appear in set areas, most of the game is just open nothing. It can get boring real fast.
Skyrim has a lot of open nothing, but there are plenty of caves and bandit camps dotted around the game. There is also the chance that you can start a quest chain by popping into one of these dungeons dotted around the world.
If we had a game that had the melee combat of Zelda Breath of the Wild with the condensed population of Skyrim that would be great.
Nice
Jessica Crawford FluttershyJAC nice
Jessica Crawford FluttershyJAC Nice
Nice
noice
I think Horizon did it perfectly where they don't tell you how large it is. I mean when I hear a lot of devs go 'The game is blah blah blah size' I get skeptical cause it sounds like they are trying to fill your head with the illusion that that entire space is packed with stuff to do when it usually turns out that that isn't the case.
Whereas if you get an open world game without that knowledge, hours in you figure out if you're immeresed via how lived in & active the world is & vice versa. And if its the later, it usually makes the game feel bigger than it really is, except for the weird drawback where it's so fun that you want more.
But that last point can't really be helped no matter how big your gameworld map is; if its loads of fun, people will always want more
Gta 5 - roughly $265 million
Pillars of Eternity - $4 million
Gta5
Two completely different games
Jcr Aka Speirs Yes, many more people know of Gta which is why it makes more money. It’s is also hard to compare when they are not made by the same devs as well. I imagine red dead 2 will sell really well.
Different games and different devs, but same window of time to make the game. The quality of PoE greatly outstrips gta in every place except graphics.
If you want to be that picky about it though, san andreas was way better than 5 with a fraction of the budget and it gave us a bigger world with more content.
Except that's an opinion and PoE is a niche market
there's a reason why GTA V is practically the king of making money almost selling a billion dollars worth of profit
Microtransactions?
IMHO the greatest thing about this channel is when falcon makes pure art like this piece or the previous video on single player games. Its like pinkie and the brain to Animaniacs.
The more it costed to make, the better it is. (Most of the times, not always)
Edit: sometimes I think indie games are better than AAA games
Most indie games don't have corporate big boys telling them what to Do
Spicy boi that's true
this might be the first Gameranx vid where I felt like you actually did some homework and covered all your bases. good stuff.
AAA games these days blow 90% or more of their budget on making their game look *marginally* better. Ever heard of the 80-20 rule? the first 20% of work gets you 80% there, but it takes 80% of the work to fit in that last 20% of visual value. While graphics and animation are great, we really need to stop rewarding studios for wasting so much money on them. Spend the first 20%, and then put the rest into user EXPERIENCE ie, performance, gameplay mechanics, and dedicated servers for multiplayer
TRIPPLE AYYY GAYMING
Very well said, Falcon. Can we all agree that some companies don't really know what gamers want? They just come up with "reasons" to justify their greed. Those "reasons" might sound reasonable sometimes but not most of the time. We have to analyze their business model before we decide to purchase any game from now on because while most companies try to come up with games that gamers actually enjoy, some companies just try to maximize profit to keep investors coming - in other words, investors > gamers. Sure it is generally THE business goal, but in entertainment industry (like video game industry), they gotta prioritize gamers to maximize their profit. So what's the problem here? many gamers (specifically those 10 "casual" gamers who spend at least $1000 on lootboxes) aren't aware. Now those AAA gaming companies only prioritize those 10 gamers because us, millions of gamer, never actually pay for those loot boxes.
Last words, I promise,
Just don't support them by not buying any of their game. And let's just hope they don't go bankrupt before they actually made profit again with actual good games.
Because microtransaction ideas
There is nothing wrong with games costing a lot to make as long it is good & advancing in graphics,sound quality, gameplay, variety etc etc. Keep getting better.
Can u guys do 10 crazy things rainbow six players do I love this channel but my fav game isn’t on here
Tdizz only thing i hate about that game is that u need to play Around 24,6 hours of ranked to be able to buy one character. Ubisoft never suprises me with Their bullshit to make ppl buy microtransactions
Theo Jonsson Yeah this annoys me as well and the fact that you cannot transfer your account to pc or to other console in order to get your operators that you paid for
Theo Jonsson well, atleast you can grind for renown and buy operators instead of just straight buy it with money
Anax Statements IMO it should Come with all operators so everyone is at fair play in competerive IF all characters were included with game id play it 10x How much i do rn
I would pay $60 for a game equivalent to an old PS2 game.
If its as good as Jak and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank, I would pay for it. No heavy graphics, no giant open worlds. Just a good and fun game. Thats what alot of consumers and game devs dont get. Its not about graphics. Its about game-play and aesthetic.
I say consumers, because people will still fall for a bad game aslong as it looks pretty. Heck, i use to fall for it all the time. (buying all the new cods, battlefront 1 etc. without figuring out if it was actually good or not first)
TL;DW.
BTW, F EA
Finished watching. It's about business sense. They have come to see customers as there, as truly captive no matter what. Which is how they justify their hollywood budgets; technology is getting cheaper, not more expensive. Nowadays you can actually do more with less, but AAA *publishers* do not want you to know this. Also, for a $250M game, justifying $200M in marketing expense therefore requiring free to play models despite being sold at full price is nonsense
And Jim Sterling made a video debunking extra credit's arguments.
Have you guys ever looked at studios like Bohemia Interactive and what they've done with Arma 3? They are still producing high quality content for a game originally released back in 2013. And for most of us, those DLCs were included when we purchased the main APEX DLC, which included basically an entire other game's worth of content for like $30 on Steam: new huge and detailed environments, weapons, character models, objects, etc. They also provide crazy support for the modding community which has probably produced about as much content by now as the original game devs. You might try asking them about their business model. They seem to be pretty open about their development processes with the community. I'd be curious to see how they manage to do it. Despite criticisms over performance issues (the game is heavily CPU bound to 1-2 cores), Arma 3 has a very dedicated following and the vast majority of us want to see Bohemia Interactive succeed in their endeavors. We've been itching for news of a better optimized Arma 4 for years while they're still producing content for Arma 3 five years down the road.
You never talked about marketing? Some games spend 1/4 their budget on marketing
AND anyone who thinks that's wrong doesn't understand business or marketing. You do realize marketing convinced a whole population of people that purchasing something they get for free was a good idea, bottled water. Also it was marketing that convinced a whole generation of gamers that purchasing nothing (digital content) was a good idea. Don't underestimate the power of marketing. It has manipulated you and everyone else in this world when it comes to purchases, what you do in your spare time, it has even made the decision of who you vote for while convincing you that it was you who made that decision.
+Lalo 2k7
nowadays and even since the mid 2000s marketing is at the very least half the budget of AAA games... hell CoD MW2 costed 50 million dollars to make, but it's marketing costed 200 million.....
One thing a lot of these developers and publishers have to cut back on big time is marketing. It's almost as expensive if not more than the actual games development. In this day and age, we don't need to have this kind of hardcore marketing like we did in previous console generations. We have social media, and our gaming culture revolves mostly around it these days, it's the best place to advertise to hardcore and casual audiences. We as gamer's practically advertise these games for these companies by constantly talking about them, for better or for worse.
PS4 games = 79.99
PS5 prob gonna be 100$ games.....gg playing games was fun while it lasted
meeran haq Super Nintendo games back in the 80's 90's had a pricetag of $99. Games are cheaper today than before
SCORPIONFURY they werent 99 dollars
SCORPIONFURY They’re not cheaper. It’s called Inflation.
SCORPIONFURY How can you not know that? Holy crap
SCORPIONFURY There is a thing called inflation? Norway currency doesnt exactly means the exact ammount you paid for. In your case and your country it was deflation. The value is still the same as the other countries. The company doesnt make any more money only the government.
Videos like this are why I subscribed to you. I love your essays, falcon!
Jim stearlin would like to have a word with you @gameranx
Smh.
It seriously requires hundreds millions of dollars to optimize computing power and algorithms in video games?
I don’t believe that. I loved you Gameranx smh please stop manipulating me....
Big game companies CAN do it, they just WON'T .. because money.. and popularity..?
Even though most of those companies used to do greater things with less..
Also if a game investment costs 50 million to make and they profit say 200 million..
then they repay the investment a juicy 150 million.. actually.. nevermind.. this is a stupid thought..
and even if I really tried to understand and was able to calculate the numbers.. it still wouldn't make sense.. except for.. capitalism..right..?
+DvS Dragon
yeah, but for a AAA game to be truly profitable it has to make 2.5-3.0X times the money it costed to develop.
First it has to break even, second it needs to make another 1.1-1.2x times the money for the next game, third it has to make money for the publisher, fourth it has to make enough money so that it has enough money if the next game is a failure and fifth it has to compensate for any other lack luster game that has been published by the publisher and considering that the average AAA game sells 3-5 million copies it's hard at 60$.
Regardless of all kinds of calculations we can do or find out..
Big triple A game companies have big names and even bigger franchises that make tons of money anyway, yet somehow .. somewhere..
There are a bunch of corporate leaders, critics and company limitations they have to live with..
Most of which who require the games to be the popular money making titles with added guarantees they make at least a certain amount of money.
Mind you, I'm not saying all companies are that bad.. some or in between or just create whatever they hell they want and still succeed.
I just feel like most of the games created back then had way more heart and "content" even by big name company standards..
lately it's just all about the paycheck and not the entertainment value but that's just my point of view.
+DvS Dragon yeah you are thinking of the 10 biggest companies and that's it and they barely make it...
As I said you need to make 3.0x times(or even 4.0x times) what the game costed(including the marketing) and when a 2-3 year development cycle of a AAA game costs 100 million dollars you need to make 300-400 million dollars, which is 5 to 7.5 million copies sold AT 60$ and they have to sell them fast, they can't wait a year to sell that many games... they need to sell that many within a month... And most AAA games sell between 3-5 million copies and they are never guaranteed to succeed and the next game is never guaranteed to succeed...
i love this channel. gameranx is just the most informational gaming channel i know. its subscribers show for this :)
09:03 hes playing on a Mac.. lol
But that doesn't explains why Witcher 3 cost only 30 million dollars
Hey
hey
Τζουλιανο Χοτζα hey
Hows life
Τζουλιανο Χοτζα good good and you?
So and so
You need to drop a top ten list of best multiplayer games coming out in 2018
The math has already been done and games are cheaper to make than ever before.
I forget his name. You can find the link in one of jim sterlings jim quisitions
Ooh, a video online. (sarcasm) Well that must be the truth then. (more sarcasm) I'm sure Jim is just a math genius that's why he's, a, doing videos online? (even more sa.... well you know)
I'm a huge open world fan. 90% of the games I have on my machine are open world games. Now, my view is, there is no need to downscale...the bigger and longer the world and story, the better, so long as they satisfy two conditions...they create quality worlds which are diverse, visually stunning, impressively occupied and have things to do that are worth my time. Second, they deliver stories that are memorable, thought-provoking and overwhelmingly repeatable. It might sound like a lot to expect, but with the budgets these huge companies are working under, I feel that we should be expecting much more than what I just mentioned.
Marketing takes up a lot of money,just look at Activision! Half of cods budget goes to marketing!!
I really enjoyed this video and pretty much every video you guys make, keep up the amazing work guys.
Always enjoy your informative videos Falcon
Don't let this distract you from the fact that a $60 game in the US, is in fact a $100 game in New Zealand...
Falcon nailed it, there are different models that exist that work very well outside the AAA setup. Smarter not harder, or in this case smarter not bigger.
To me, games need to focus less on trend setting/following and more on "What Makes Special". Horizon Zero Dawn was great because despite it being sparsely populated by human NPCs, there were animals and machines everywhere. The world wasn't all that large but it didn't need to be. The biggest problem with super huge open worlds is you fall into one of two traps. Either it's 90% barren landscape with a few towns and enemies scattered about or there's so much there you'll never explore it all. Bethesda ends up in both at the same time. Big =/= Quality, Quality = Quality
I didn't think this video would be that much interesting. Keep it up, really clever thinking.
Gr8 video. Two things, first is yu guys had made a video abt things we believe about game developers that are not true and one of the points was that game developers are not rich, but with GTA V making $800 mil in profits, I find it still hard to believe. Second, I want hands like Aloy (don't know if this is spelled right) from Horizon Zero Dawn, for her to slide down that long shaft or rope and came off unflinched, her hands must have been forged in the deepest pits of tartarus lol
Great video once again gameranx.