Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 dev Tim Willits explains why the game was able to achieve massive success when so many big budget games have failed lately.
Pretty much what I’ve been saying for almost a decade, mostly in response to “game development is expensive, that’s why AAA games need *insert extra revenue streams*”. My response has always been that games are bloated with feature creep and if there was an actual issue with development costs the first thing you can cut are features that don’t really add to the game. Not only do you cut development costs but you arguably make a better product.
Nice to get some validation because it’s been a rather controversial opinion. People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it’s not an open world with XP, skills and crafting. Or a competitive hero based online shooter with XP, unlockables, season pass and 5 different game modes. I guess now people don’t buy those even if they are all those things
People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it’s not an open world with XP, skills and crafting.
See, I hate crafting systems. A game advertising its crafting system makes me less interested. Too many things to remember and the game grinds to a halt for several minutes while I navigate menus. Dragon Age Inquisition was particularly bad with entire sessions lost to inventory management. The Horizon games are bearable just because I can generate pointers to the stuff I need and I’m generally swimming in components anyway.
Budgets follow revenue. Never the other way around.
Games got fat because they made more money. Publishers are the ones pushing for more and bigger and better, often to the point their expectations are flatly impossible, and then the studio gets demolished.
IMO that’s a leadership failure. Leading the company down the route where your games are “make or break” is a failure of leadership. I know there’s a power dynamic where the publisher has all the money and might not give it if you don’t do what they want, but that comes with the territory and if you can’t get the funding without being a yes-man then that’s also a failure of leadership.
Blaming subsidiaries that get wrung-out for their own wringing-out is looking straight at the problem and saying “it doesn’t look like anything to me.”
So in your mind the subsidiary has no autonomy? The publisher says “bloat” and the subsidiary says “how much”?
Want to explain how Fallen Order didn’t become a bloated mess? Star Wars is one the most popular franchises in the world and it’s EA we’re talking about. If it’s all on the publisher Fallen Order should’ve been a mess the same way Battlefront 2 was a mess.
Systemic problems don’t vanish when one case goes well. Even Respawn had predictable troubles in their very next game. The kind that happen all the dang time, when the publisher literally owns your company, and can fire anyone in charge who doesn’t run things the way they expect. If you don’t say “how much?” you better keep your resume current.
The reward for bucking the trend and making something exceptional is being squeezed to make another and another and another. Sent to the Jedi mines.
Their budget is controlled from above. Their deadlines are controlled from above. They can negotiate, but it’s a negotiation with their hands clasped and their knees on the floor. And as soon as they fumble the demanded product, for any reason, everybody might get fired.
I’ve had this argument too many times to care anymore. My point is that if there’s an actual issue with budgeting the developers/publishers can focus the product and cut the bloat. We’ve now reached that point where there are actual problems with budgeting and an industry vet more or less said the same thing I’ve been saying, which is that AAA is trying to do too many things and they’d do better if they focused what they’re doing.
You’re not arguing what I’ve said. You’re arguing over who to blame and if your want to put the blame solely on the publishers do that, I don’t care who you blame.
‘I don’t care, I’m not arguing’ is a bizarre lead-in to the same argument.
An actual example of not-arguing was my first reply to you: it was a yes-and that pointed to why “AAA” games keep ballooning. You then immediately blamed “leadership.” You acknowledged the power dynamic, where those leaders kinda have to do whatever publishers want, or else there’s no money, and then… blamed them anyway. Like the only options are zero autonomy versus entirely their fault.
Not, I dunno, systemic pressure that makes this shit keep happening, even when developers and industry vets plainly know it’s bad for them. Almost like it’s not what they’d choose… but it’s not their choice.
Pretty much what I’ve been saying for almost a decade, mostly in response to “game development is expensive, that’s why AAA games need *insert extra revenue streams*”. My response has always been that games are bloated with feature creep and if there was an actual issue with development costs the first thing you can cut are features that don’t really add to the game. Not only do you cut development costs but you arguably make a better product.
Nice to get some validation because it’s been a rather controversial opinion. People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it’s not an open world with XP, skills and crafting. Or a competitive hero based online shooter with XP, unlockables, season pass and 5 different game modes. I guess now people don’t buy those even if they are all those things
See, I hate crafting systems. A game advertising its crafting system makes me less interested. Too many things to remember and the game grinds to a halt for several minutes while I navigate menus. Dragon Age Inquisition was particularly bad with entire sessions lost to inventory management. The Horizon games are bearable just because I can generate pointers to the stuff I need and I’m generally swimming in components anyway.
More directly:
Budgets follow revenue. Never the other way around.
Games got fat because they made more money. Publishers are the ones pushing for more and bigger and better, often to the point their expectations are flatly impossible, and then the studio gets demolished.
IMO that’s a leadership failure. Leading the company down the route where your games are “make or break” is a failure of leadership. I know there’s a power dynamic where the publisher has all the money and might not give it if you don’t do what they want, but that comes with the territory and if you can’t get the funding without being a yes-man then that’s also a failure of leadership.
Blaming subsidiaries that get wrung-out for their own wringing-out is looking straight at the problem and saying “it doesn’t look like anything to me.”
So in your mind the subsidiary has no autonomy? The publisher says “bloat” and the subsidiary says “how much”?
Want to explain how Fallen Order didn’t become a bloated mess? Star Wars is one the most popular franchises in the world and it’s EA we’re talking about. If it’s all on the publisher Fallen Order should’ve been a mess the same way Battlefront 2 was a mess.
Systemic problems don’t vanish when one case goes well. Even Respawn had predictable troubles in their very next game. The kind that happen all the dang time, when the publisher literally owns your company, and can fire anyone in charge who doesn’t run things the way they expect. If you don’t say “how much?” you better keep your resume current.
The reward for bucking the trend and making something exceptional is being squeezed to make another and another and another. Sent to the Jedi mines.
Their budget is controlled from above. Their deadlines are controlled from above. They can negotiate, but it’s a negotiation with their hands clasped and their knees on the floor. And as soon as they fumble the demanded product, for any reason, everybody might get fired.
I’ve had this argument too many times to care anymore. My point is that if there’s an actual issue with budgeting the developers/publishers can focus the product and cut the bloat. We’ve now reached that point where there are actual problems with budgeting and an industry vet more or less said the same thing I’ve been saying, which is that AAA is trying to do too many things and they’d do better if they focused what they’re doing.
You’re not arguing what I’ve said. You’re arguing over who to blame and if your want to put the blame solely on the publishers do that, I don’t care who you blame.
‘I don’t care, I’m not arguing’ is a bizarre lead-in to the same argument.
An actual example of not-arguing was my first reply to you: it was a yes-and that pointed to why “AAA” games keep ballooning. You then immediately blamed “leadership.” You acknowledged the power dynamic, where those leaders kinda have to do whatever publishers want, or else there’s no money, and then… blamed them anyway. Like the only options are zero autonomy versus entirely their fault.
Not, I dunno, systemic pressure that makes this shit keep happening, even when developers and industry vets plainly know it’s bad for them. Almost like it’s not what they’d choose… but it’s not their choice.