It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Why do AAA games fail?(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 05, 2013
This is (in the modern world) one of the banes of all things great : "democracy". Why oh why oh why is Joe Average's opinion so important ? Do you really think that the great philosophers came to their astoundingly brilliant conclusions by asking the masses what they thought ? No, they came to their OWN conclusions, IN SPITE of the "majority".

I absolutely HATE the way that publishers / developers always ask the majority what they want from a game before they decide what kind of game they are going to create. Just forget about what the crowd wants and make what you want to make. And if all you want to make is money then just fuck off out of the industry and do something else.
Post edited June 05, 2013 by Theoclymenus
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
jamyskis: [Besides, I rather enjoyed Bionic Commando and Dark Void.
Terrible in my book. BC: Rearmed was good but it's just a remake only meaning NES BC was great.
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
Theoclymenus: ... And if all you want to make is money then just fuck off out of the industry and do something else.
I'm sorry, but that sentence does not make any sense at all. The very first definition of the word industry is "commercial production and sale of goods", so I fail to see why people wanting to be involved in the gaming industry would be excluded on the basis of their intention to make money.

I think the sort of game creation environment you have envisioned is a sort of commune, in which creative people come together to dedicate their time and energy to producing the games you want to see. And somehow feeding themselves and their families in the process.

I am being deliberately facetious, of course, but I do think that there is merit to the previous argument that monetary reward provides a much more reliable check and balance on game quality than more nebulous concepts like creativity and art. Inspired and creative indie games have been flourishing recently because talented and created people are following their vision through to completion, finally being rewarded with a few pounds, dollars and euros for their efforts. Meanwhile, big gaming publishers are getting equally talented people who are maybe more interested in monetary reward over spiritual reward to pump out games such as Call of Duty because there are people who want to buy those games. Much in the same way that people want to buy a Burger King meal one day, but perhaps make a salad at home the next.

There are indie games that fail to meet their creators' expectations just the same as AAA games, and there is no great mystery to that. Some game ideas come together to be fun and so are worth buying, while some are just pants no matter how much or how little money you throw at their development. If I could offer any explanation as to why some AAA games fail so hard, I would argue that it is the innevitable momentum that comes with throwing millions of dollars of investment into a project; eventually there reaches a tipping point where completely writing off said investement is less preferable to soldiering on and hoping for a bloody great miracle on release day. Oh, and review embargos.
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
Theoclymenus: ... And if all you want to make is money then just fuck off out of the industry and do something else.
avatar
Lobsang1979: I'm sorry, but that sentence does not make any sense at all. The very first definition of the word industry is "commercial production and sale of goods", so I fail to see why people wanting to be involved in the gaming industry would be excluded on the basis of their intention to make money.

I think the sort of game creation environment you have envisioned is a sort of commune, in which creative people come together to dedicate their time and energy to producing the games you want to see. And somehow feeding themselves and their families in the process.

I am being deliberately facetious, of course, but I do think that there is merit to the previous argument that monetary reward provides a much more reliable check and balance on game quality than more nebulous concepts like creativity and art. Inspired and creative indie games have been flourishing recently because talented and created people are following their vision through to completion, finally being rewarded with a few pounds, dollars and euros for their efforts. Meanwhile, big gaming publishers are getting equally talented people who are maybe more interested in monetary reward over spiritual reward to pump out games such as Call of Duty because there are people who want to buy those games. Much in the same way that people want to buy a Burger King meal one day, but perhaps make a salad at home the next.

There are indie games that fail to meet their creators' expectations just the same as AAA games, and there is no great mystery to that. Some game ideas come together to be fun and so are worth buying, while some are just pants no matter how much or how little money you throw at their development. If I could offer any explanation as to why some AAA games fail so hard, I would argue that it is the innevitable momentum that comes with throwing millions of dollars of investment into a project; eventually there reaches a tipping point where completely writing off said investement is less preferable to soldiering on and hoping for a bloody great miracle on release day. Oh, and review embargos.

I honestly never imagined any such thing as a commune of game developers - I think that is more likely your visualisation of my idea :) In my view isolation is just as important as solitude (which can be achieved without isolation) - but that's just me, because I'm flawed.

I've got absolutely nothing against talented people making money, by the way. All I am saying is that the ideal attitude of any given individual ought to be to prize creation above making money, and I think that in the early, innocent, days of gaming that is how it was. It's rather ironic, I find, that two to three decades on there are people who are infinitely more "sophisticated" and educated when it comes to making games but who, collectively, can't muster an ounce of inspiration.
Post edited June 05, 2013 by Theoclymenus
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
AlKim: I presume that, in this context, failed games are those that fail to cover the cost of their own development and marketing. The flawed assumption that returns are directly proportional to investment is a factor here; to me it seems that money is used incredibly inefficiently in AAA game development.
Exactly, you can even see it in some of these kickstarters. How many writers do you really need writing stories for one game? How many musicians do you need creating a score for a soundtrack that a lot of people turn off anyway? Granted all of this adds to a better product, but it also increases the cost of game development and splits profits into more shares.
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
Lobsang1979: I'm sorry, but that sentence does not make any sense at all. The very first definition of the word industry is "commercial production and sale of goods", so I fail to see why people wanting to be involved in the gaming industry would be excluded on the basis of their intention to make money.
I think it was more directed at the 'get-rich-quick'-schemers - the people who actually don't give a fuck about and don't really understand games but see that people are making money off it and want an undeserved piece of that pie. John Riccitiello, Bobby Kotick and the like.

avatar
Lobsang1979: I think the sort of game creation environment you have envisioned is a sort of commune, in which creative people come together to dedicate their time and energy to producing the games you want to see. And somehow feeding themselves and their families in the process.
Such 'communes', as you put it, do exist. Look at games like Battle for Wesnoth, Speed Dreams, Xonotic, FlightGear, UFO: Alien Invasion, Black Mesa, The Silver Lining. Games made on the basis of effort alone with no interest in monetary gain.

Games are made for other reasons than money. Sometimes out of creative desire, sometimes out of reverence for another's work.

avatar
Lobsang1979: There are indie games that fail to meet their creators' expectations just the same as AAA games, and there is no great mystery to that. Some game ideas come together to be fun and so are worth buying, while some are just pants no matter how much or how little money you throw at their development. If I could offer any explanation as to why some AAA games fail so hard, I would argue that it is the innevitable momentum that comes with throwing millions of dollars of investment into a project; eventually there reaches a tipping point where completely writing off said investement is less preferable to soldiering on and hoping for a bloody great miracle on release day. Oh, and review embargos.
An indie game failing to meet the creator's own expectations financially is of course the risk that any developer faces. And the vast majority of indie games do fail financially. Gamers have this bizarre impression that indie gaming is somehow an automatic goldmine because the media seem to only focus on the click-bait success stories and generally give very little attention to the genuine underdogs.

Any developer worth his salt knows that you don't enter indie gaming for financial gain. There is little money to be made there. You enter indie gaming to make the games you want, the games that you would like to play, the games that you would be proud of. And when you've made a game that you're happy with, that can be considered a success.
Post edited June 05, 2013 by jamyskis
Posted June 05, 2013
Over hyping. Some publishers are so concerned about graphics that they forget to add the gameplay first. A good rule from now on should be, gameplay first, then graphics.
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
Elenarie: Misuse of budget.
This is probably one of the very few times you'll ever see me agree with Elenarie on something, but I don't think this point can BE underestimated.

I honestly believe that most big publishers are terrible stewards of their budgets. If you HAVE to sell 20 million plus copies of something to be a success, then you have major internal issues and need to figure out where the hell you're hemorrhaging that much cash.

They spend money on celebrity voice actors, when there's plenty of no name candidates out there who I'm sure would be a much more affordable choice, they spend money on marketing to the wrong audiences, most seem to do very little focus group testing at all, which in this industry you HAVE to do, then more importantly: LISTEN TO WHAT THEY TELL YOU.

I also think that some publishers' names alone will automatically turn off gamers. It's pretty popular to bag on EA, Activision and Ubisoft in particular, and while lots of Gamestop horde mentality gamers will still buy their products, you can't alienate the most core audiences if you really want your game to sell.
Posted June 05, 2013
I think it should be pointed out that games themselves aren't terribly expensive to make, when I say "games" I mean the programming for the game's core logic, mechanics, gameplay. The real expense comes from the graphics/animation, sound and music, and cutscenes, ie everything that isn't the game itself but it just the "sprinkles" that CAN make a good game easier on the eyes and ears.

The problem with AAA games is that there's almost no cake, but all sprinkles.
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
Zookie: I know there are lots of reasons a big title can flop. We have all seen games that came out with a lot of hype and a lot of backing that were just awful. But in your opinion what is the most common pitfall that big developers suffer from. Poor programming? Lack of imagination? Too ambitions? What do you think trips up the big budget development teams the most?
I just touched on this in another thread. IMHO, its the definition of a AAA game. They want it to be a game for the masses. In order to achieve a game for the masses they have to make decisions that the "REAL" gamer fan base does not like. Games are often dumbed down. Once this occurs, the masses, who often hear about great games from the real fan base don't hear of or find interest in those big budget titles.

IMHO, games should be developed for the niche market. Games like Thief, Deus ex, Morrowind, Baldur's Gate... those weren't developed as games for the masses. (Though their sequels likely were to some extent). Someone wanting to make a great FPS game should simply do that and not worry about weather or not Farmville fans will find it difficult.

In short, I think its greed. And maybe not even intentional greed, but those eyes light up with visions of the whole world playing their game and then they have to remove or add features that their core audience doesn't enjoy to welcome in that NEW audience of gamers.

This is why I'm currently liking the Kickstarter method. I want more Tex Murphy's, Grim Dawn's, and Gabriel Knights... I want less and less of Half Life X. Would love a talented developor to launch a stealth game (something Thiefy... would dig deep into the allowance jar for one of those ;) )
Post edited June 05, 2013 by user deleted
Posted June 05, 2013
I think the most problematic influence on todays AAA-games is the lack of a really good leading idea through the whole development, espacially when producing sequals:
They don´t ask themself "what made our last game fantastic?" and "what elements didn´t really fit in the concept ?"at all.
Instead of this they are just taking various elements and throw them into one game.
This makes the average AAA title boring...
Posted June 05, 2013
Okay, time to play Devil's Advocate on the economic side of things. Before I get into this, I'd like to say that I fully support people creating works of love. However, this isn't a perfect world and that position is just unrealistic. When I try to simplify economics, I generally come back to this maxim: Either someone pays, or someone doesn't get paid.

This is pretty straightforward: if you want something done, someone needs to pay for it. If no one pays for it, then that means someone didn't get paid for their work. If the game wasn't a financial success, then that means that someone lost money or someone worked for free (or, more likely, both). Put in perspective, this means investors losing money and employees going unpaid. That's a pretty big catastrophe.

I certainly wish that people could just make a product they're passionate about, but that's not how the world works. Bills need to be paid, wages need to be met, and that requires a lot of financial backing even for relatively small projects. Few privately-owned developers have a pocket deep enough to be bleeding six-figure amounts on a yearly basis, and no investor will stand for it.

For God's sake, please try to learn that economics is not the be-all and end-all of everything
I fully respect where you're coming from, but you must put your money where your mouth is if you truly believe in it. If you don't have a hundred grand (minimum) in the bank, then you'll have to ask for someone to invest in your project. Expect them to care about one thing and one thing only: return on investment. If you walk in with a business plan projecting costs and expected returns from sales, you might just get that loan. If you walk in and shout about creativity and that economics is not the be-all and end-all, expect to leave empty-handed.

Bottom line: someone pays, or someone doesn't get paid. It's easy to talk the talk about economics not being the most important thing in the world, but it's much harder when you stand to personally lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if the project fails.


(EDIT) This, of course, has no standing on mismanagement screwing things up. That's just incompetence, regardless of whether you're coming from a creative or financial perspective.
Post edited June 05, 2013 by Darvin
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
Darvin: Bottom line: someone pays, or someone doesn't get paid. It's easy to talk the talk about economics not being the most important thing in the world, but it's much harder when you stand to personally lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if the project fails.
You make good points, but there are counters to most of them, I believe.

First, I think the problem is choosing investors. When I back someone financially, I don't do it so that I can micromanage them. I give them the money because I trust that they know what to do with it to be successful.

Second, there is a HUGE difference between someone who just graduated Nintendo school wanting money so they can make it big, and someone who has already taken the time to make a project worth backing. Look at Grim Dawn. When that kickstarter page first showed up, it wasn't some ideas and theories. He had working gameplay, design documents, wish lists, etc. It was very practical to examine his talent and vision and determine if you wanted to invest in this or not (very different from the publisher model).

I think you also have to look at the profit margins of publishers versus developers. You make all those concessions and the game flops because the publisher is pulling the "economic" strings... and the publisher still gets paid. What do the devs get? Remember we are talking about failed AAA games. So obviously it wasn't the best thing in the world to listen to the money holders. While you might have to for a time, the model appears fully broken IMHO. Publishers no longer have a place in the gaming industry as proven by Humble, Steam, Kickstarter, self starters, etc.

For me, the bottom line is, what do they gain if they make economical concessions, but those concessions make me not want to buy the game? Doesn't that mean they are actually NOT being economical? As the only way to make money is to make a game appealing. But, the failed games are NOT appealing.

Just my 2 cents.
Post edited June 05, 2013 by user deleted
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
hucklebarry: When I back someone financially, I don't do it so that I can micromanage them. I give them the money because I trust that they know what to do with it to be successful.
Absolutely correct, but you still have the expectation that they are pursuing financial success. You'll probably want regular status updates and will become concerned if the project is costing too much or taking too long.

I certainly wasn't addressing mismanagement of a project.
Second, there is a HUGE difference between someone who just graduated Nintendo school wanting money so they can make it big, and someone who has already taken the time to make a project worth backing
Absolutely, but the second guy still has to make a business case to obtain funding. Investors aren't funding him because they like his creative work, but because he's got a track record of creating profitable products.

This is my underlying point: you need to be financially successful in order to get the opportunities to be creatively successful.
Grim Dawn ... kickstarter ... it wasn't some ideas and theories. He had working gameplay, design documents, wish lists, etc. It was very practical to examine his talent and vision and determine if you wanted to invest in this or not (very different from the publisher model).
Crowdfunding is a new and interesting model. It essentially works by transfering the risk from investors to the end-consumers. This has a few interesting advantages, but it's too early to say if it's driven by hype or if some ugly demons have yet to rear their heads.

In any case, having a working prototype is always a great thing to show to your investors (traditional or otherwise). Creating such a prototype takes time and effort (ie, money), which indicates that you're serious about the project. In other words, you have your own skin in the game, and that makes investors more comfortable about getting involved. I don't see how this is a counter-argument to my points.
So obviously it wasn't the best thing in the world to listen to the money holders.
Hey, hey, don't make a strawman here. I am not defending mismanagement.

What I'm saying is that creativity is not the metric by which projects get funded and created. Financial success is the driving factor. You could certainly make a case (one that I'd wholeheartedly agree with) that the current AAA industry can't tell a good project from a bad one, but that's a different issue entirely.
what do they gain if they make economical concessions, but those concessions make me not want to buy the game? Doesn't that mean they are actually NOT being economical?
If they make economic concessions that end up hurting the game, then that was a bad business decision. For publishers, creativity is a means to an end; that end being financial success.
Posted June 05, 2013
avatar
jamyskis: ....I would say that the ending was the most successful thing about the game, because it represented a victory of creativity (I believe it was wrriten by Jen Hapler?) over commerce. Everything else about that game was a perfect example of cynical commercialisation. ...
I just had to think about other entertainment areas like movies, comics, books. Sure there are great series like for example "Firefly" which didn't have a big commercial success and then there are medium quality series like "Sex in the City" which break all records. But then there are also great movies or books where quality and commercial success go hand in hand.

I believe that in the long run quality and commercial success are equivalent. One will lead to the other. People aren't stupid, they will buy the cool stuff in the end. Maybe a bit naive, but otherwise we have to rely on some kind of elitist (minority) opinion about what is cool and what is not cool.

We still have plenty of room to discuss whether main stream products are less creative / lower quality than products for a niche audience?
Post edited June 05, 2013 by Trilarion
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Why do AAA games fail?(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)