If you’ve been wondering what the likes of Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch are up to, then here’s a worrying observation from Microsoft’s Matt Booty: tentpole titles may take four to six years to develop on new-gen consoles, as opposed to the two to three years that was common previously. While the executive was, understandably, referring to Xbox’s own pipeline, it’s not hard to imagine a similar shift will occur with Sony’s first-party, as well as third-party teams.
“I think that the industry and the fans were a little behind the curve on sort of a reset to understand that games aren't two or three years anymore,” he told the Axios newsletter, adding that major AAA projects will now take anywhere from four years to six years to create. “There are higher expectations. The level of fidelity that we're able to deliver just goes up.”
Of course, this doesn’t mean all games will take that long to create – and Booty even acknowledged that smaller projects from efficient indies teams can be built in a year or less. But these comments do perhaps offer some perspective on why Sony’s first-party lineup is looking so light right now: major titles are taking longer to develop than ever before. It’ll be interesting to see how the Japanese giant navigates these issues, and how it intends to pad out its schedule and fill in the gaps.
[source axios.com]
Comments 121
Considering how MS have handled there studios over the years it probably takes them twice as long.
@AdamNovice Maybe, but we're already three years on from The Last of Us 2 and I doubt we're getting anything new from Naughty Dog until at least 2025, likely 2026.
(Obviously The Last of Us Factions disaster is a factor in that, and they did also do the Part 1 remake.)
Ghost of Tsushima was 2020 and I doubt we get the sequel until 2025. So, he's probably right, to be honest...
I honestly wish this trend would stop. I don't want bigger bigger bigger games. I want more games like Uncharted Lost Legacy, Spider-Man Miles Morales and Assassin's Creed Mirage.
Edit: I also refuse to believe its about "the fidelity" or "the power of new consoles", but instead that devs want to make every game bigger than the last. More story, bigger map, more missions, more scripted encounters, more mechanics, etc etc.
Look at the likes of Call of Duty. We still get an entry every year, 3 teams, working each on 3 year cycles. Yes, they get tons of support studios, but the real key is they don't add gigantic campaigns. The campaign length in CoD games has not increased since the X360/PS3 days. The visuals have definitively improved.
I’d take smaller projects if they focused on innovation rather than the graphical arms race.
I said this on the PXB thread about this, but I really miss 2 gens ago when a trilogy would be every other year and completely on one generation platform rather than this photorealism obsession that makes a single trilogy span the entire gaming lifetime of which people are even in the gaming demographic age group. It's too much. I'd love to go back to simpler graphics, reasonable development costs and timelines, and have games track at a decent release rate with reasonable costs and returns expectations.
Now with these massive time spans and massive costs to produce every game needs to be a colossal hit to guarantee a return after all the money has been spent to make it, any misfire is catastrophic, and the pressure to include the kitchen sink to ensure everyone buys in homogenizes most games.
The industry did this to themselves chasing tech obsessions rather than focusing on the product package itself.
This is exactly what Shawn Layden was talking about back in the PS4 era and here we are, industry-wide.
I had this realization not too long ago... hence the thick layer of dust on my PS5 and why I burn out the battery on my Switch at least 2 to 3 times a week.
I guess the tools and techniques for development haven’t evolved as quickly as the technological sophistication to deliver high end games. You’d think with AI and the fancy modern engines and expertise that game makers can be more efficient, but the games are still just too demanding.
Like @Tharsman says, I don’t necessarily think the games need to be as big as they are getting. If it meant shaving off a year or two of development to cut a 80 hour game down to 40 hours, I’ll take that trade-off.
@Tharsman couldnt agree with this more. The obsession with production value is ruining gaming a bit for me.
If I wanted that Id watch a movie. With games I just want fun gameplay.
@Tharsman you are part of the problem.
GOOD. Let developers create new ambitious games like Starfield instead of recycled crap like AC and Horizon.
Seems like it, but there are a lot of AA games coming out and many more indies, so people have their backlogs full anyway until the next AAA is out.
Shouldn't game creation actually be quicker nowadays since technology has advanced so much etc? I mean they made the PS5 really easy to work with, it should be getting easier and easier. And we're now at the start of the dawn of AI which they could use to do most things easier and faster too.
Almost double the time and most games still look close to a PS4 title.
I think alot of this boils down to the developers as well. Insomniac pumps great games out constantly. They are wayyyy ahead of the bar over all of Sonys other studios.
@Jaxx420 People will be obsessed over the looks of games just like guys obsess over the looks of beautiful women right?
@get2sammyb But then there's Insomniac who release games on average every three years. I think all things considered I think PS Studios probably average around 4/5 turnaround but it depends if said game is a new IP which normally takes longer.
@NEStalgia I edited my post but I refuse to accept this is about better graphics. This is about insisting on making games bigger, making sure players are hooked for more hours every single iteration. Used to be a solid story game was 8 hours to beat. Now if its less than 20 people scream like they got mugged and stabbed. Slowly that keeps going up. 40 hours, 60 hours... 300 hours...
And its not like devs want to do this, not all, they simply feel forced to do this, because again, players keep whining if a game does not give them at least one hour gaming per hour or some other arbitrary metric.
Yup.
Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Firesprite, Bluepoint, Sony Bend, Housemarque and Guerrilla will release one more sp game for this gen. Insomniac two more because they're insomniac.
@Triumph741
There are games, and then there are open world rpgs. Games like Starfield have always taken ridiculous windows of time to develop, precisely because they have always been huge. The problem is that now every single game wants to be Starfield-scale.
For the love of games, let developers make games like Pentiment, Hi-Fi Rush, Uncharted Lost Legacy, etc. Not everything has to be a giant open world game with 300 hours of gameplay.
If they focused way less on making massive games with state-of-the-art visuals, we'd get more interesting games from these studios and more frequently.
They'e already charging us more ..what are they doing with the extra money? I hope they aren't trying enhance profits while continuing to work with a way smaller workforce
Been thinking about this for a long time. It's probably one of the main reasons why MS are trying so hard to close the ABK deal. They need the dev power.
@AdamNovice I think Insomniac has the solution I like the most - Don't go acquisition mad. Invest in and grow your team to a size where they can work on two three big projects and stagger their schedules.
(Easier said than done, I'm sure.)
Edit: This has been normal for a good while now though right? BotW came out in 2017, TotK came out this year.
God of War in 2018, Ragnarok in 2022.
@Snake_V5 aye we are in a generation of idiots with a "model myself on reality tv stars like its an obsession" its kinda sad. Lol.
This isn't really news is it? Different games made by different size teams with different budgets take varied amounts of time to come to fruition. I chatted to an indie dev in 2016 about their game. It might be out next year from the looks of it.
This discussion seems to relate to scale and scope. Six years for a huge game with Hi-Fidelity, or 2-3 years for a game with slightly less ambition and scale from a AAA. It's about what they want to make. They choose to make these expansive worlds because they can and they have the budget, everything else can be left for the indie and AA devs. I would gladly take more frequent releases from AAA, but it's not going to happen, unless of course it's a studio like Insomniac, again, they have the money and the team size to devote to multiple projects with a more frequent release schedule.
@Snake_V5 It's been a blight in gaming that really started with PC, there's one group of gamers that like games, and another group of "gamers" that are really just technophiles. The game doesn't wow them, they're just wowed by a demonstration of what computer graphics can do. The industry mostly shifted to catering to the latter at some point. And consumers seem ot have mostly shifted to that latter group as computer graphics have learned to imitate movies, which isn't helped by movies increasingly just becoming computer graphics.
@Jaxx420 "If I wanted that Id watch a movie. With games I just want fun gameplay"
That's just it, most of the industry seems more bent on making a better hollywood film than hollywood and they've forgotten to make games. And it's come at the cost of basically doing neither because it takes so long to simply make one with a price tag that's almost impossible to repay.
@Tharsman It goes hand in hand though. Those 8 hour story games used to be $40 or 50. They insist on making them prettier, then insist on raising costs, then in return consumers demand more value. Games like Baldur's Gate, BG2, etc used to be dozens of hours epics but still managed to keep costs and turnaround time tight. But they had sprite based graphics of course. It's all related.
GoT is great and all, but if we look at the inFamous trilogy (duology + 1?) look how much interesting content that wasn't just 8 hour stories SP was able to put out in a short space of time vs a whole generation just for GoT. It's not just about cramming hours in. It's the graphics, the "world" the trappings of technology. Cool game, but functionally it doesn't stray overwhelmingly from Tenchu in an open world, if the photorealism factor weren't in play. We could be on GoT 2, a new Sly, and some new IP by now otherwise.
I both get it and don't get it. Yes, the huge AAA games take a long time. But certain developers have a better reputation than others for being prolific with concurrent projects. For example, we know Rock Star focuses on like one or maybe two projects at a time for a six year stretch. But, Capcom... they have four or five projects going at any given time to stagger out the waits. I think it just comes down to resource allocation and prioritizing. I'm not worried. And this isn't really new. It's how the model has been for the past decade.
Well yeah wasn’t this obvious really
Im actually fine with is as long as they dont announce them at the beginning of the dev cycle. 12 months in advance is plenty notice.
@NEStalgia
Might be misremembering but I think prices have been $60 standard since the 360 days. Even so, that is the thing: the current increase in price is precisely being justified by the fact that we are getting bigger games, and its becoming unsustainable.
Edit: I'm throwing my money behind Mirage. Hopefully its successful enough to at least convince Ubisoft that smaller projects are still desirable.
I think it is great that when you end your development cycle after six years, your game can instantly qualify as retro
@Vacuumator Would echo everything in this comment.
@Tharsman
Go read game reviews of sequels that are smaller than the previous version (if you can find them - Mile Morales is the exception rather than the rule). SOOOOO many will complain that the sequel is smaller. Don't add enough new mechanics, and they'll complain it's the same.
If sales show that smaller sequels can make money, then we'll get more smaller sequels. There's a reason why there's a trend for bigger - it sells.
EDIT: I think this understates the impact of new technologies, especially early in development. If you're trying to figure out how to best use the incredibly fast storage of a PS5 to deliver something new that old hardware truly couldn't handle, then it's going to take time and experimentation to figure that out. If you're developing for multiple platforms it will take more time to figure out how to benefit from that speed while still supporting all (or most of) the variations you encounter in the PC world. The studios that do it best will set new standards - and as they become standards, it will be easier to replicate and leverage for future projects. So eventually, that time to write to the new hardware shortens...at least until there's NEW hardware to figure out how to take advantage of, like a PS6 or PS5Pro.
@Tharsman You are 100% wrong. AC and Horizon are huge. Starfield is AMBITIOUS. New mechanics, new ways to play, complete freedom, moddng tools that will help people develop amazing new experiences over the next decade and even help break into the industry.
There is NOTHING that connects Startfield with crap like AC and Horizon.
This is why I think more companies should see value in having smaller projects that they can get out much more easily have less of a budget on, but allow much more freedom for the devs to create a new and unique experience. I think it only helps to diversify a console's lineup and allows companies to have even more games come out
Perhaps this means I may finally catch up. No one would believe my backlog.
@RobN
Yea, that's part of what I stated above when I said people tend to cry as if they were mugged when a game is not big enough. Funny is they also tend to complain about padding and bloat. There is simply not satisfying players. And maybe you missed it, but Miles Morales also got its share of complaints, at least from the community, even if not from reviewers.
Welp MS took a whole year to understand their team behind the new Perfect Dark wasn't competent and needed to hire Crystal Dynamics so ... games take a long time we already knew that stop giving too much credit to what MS says or not. This site has more "news" from what MS related people speculate than actual facts.
@Triumph741 ok you are obviously just trolling now. Look: I'm as excited for Starfield as anyone else, hell I just spent $300 on the Constelation edition, bought the controller and bought a new PC just for that game... but you are just for some unknown reason trying to defend a game I didn't even mention until you brought it up.
I said every game is trying to be Starfield. I didn't say every game is starfield. And even that was a figure of speech, given Starfield didn't even exist at the time. The point is every game wants to be that big, and keep bloating their development cycles to become as big as games that come just once every 10 years, and the result is obvious: they are creeping into also becoming 10 year cycle games.
Hasn’t 4 to 6 years been the standard for a few generations now or has Microsoft only found this out because they expanded their first party production beyond Forza
@Tharsman Of course. Accuse me of trolling for simply not thinking inside of the small box you are living in.
No other game is trying to be Starfield. Games are trying to be Ubisoft. Copy and paste 5 mission types over and over, marvel-ish weak writing, 0 depth, artificial leveling up system and level gating, actual bloat, arcade-y game flow etc
@IndoorEnthusiast A big part of their point, I'm sure, is that players and journalist both keep demanding XBox delivers new games with all those studios they acquired. The acquisitions started in 2018, and many of these studios even at the time were bound by pre-acquisition obligations. Even if you ignore those obligations, we talking about 5 years, so he is basically saying that we should finally start seeing the delivery of the 2018 acquistions next year.
@Triumph741 ok blocking you now. Enjoy Starfield.
I could've sworn one of the talking points before the ps5 release was how that games can be made to run and develop for as easily as the ps2 days they even had a graph showing all playstation consoles and how ps1 was the shortest about of time and ps3 was the longest amount of time
I’d much prefer lots of smaller games, albeit with high production value, than a small number of huge high production value games that try to lock me into their “ecosystem” long term to make their money back. Games like Yakuza rather than Starfield or GaaS rubbish.
When every game needed to be bigger and bigger we of course come to this predicament. Honestly if God of War Ragnarok (as an example) was half as long I probably would have enjoyed it more.
@IndoorEnthusiast
No. The middle point of the 8th Gen was where development time scales really started to skyrocket.
In the 7th Gen (PS3 and 360) average development time increased to about 3 years on average across the entire generation for ambitious games (there were exceptions to that rule; for example New Vegas was done in about a year and a half but they leveraged a ton of assets from Fallout 3 to pull that off). Some less ambitious titles were finished in two.
By the time the PS4/Xbone rolled around, development time had increased to 2-3 years for formulaic sequels and four years for ambitious new IP games by the middle of the generation. By the end, really big AAA games had increased to four for just formulaic sequels.
That’s why gaming has felt so samey for a long time now. We are waiting longer than ever for relatively formulaic AAA games.
@Drago201
That was never going to happen.
The consoles are easier to program and develop for, but the expectations of modern art, sound and music, presentation, and fidelity have increased dramatically since 2006.
A significant portion of dev time isn’t even spent on programming. That’s arguably one of the faster parts of the development process these days assuming your studio has competent programmers. Artwork, sound design, lighting maps, material work for assets, etc. are what really increases dev time these days because the expectations are so much higher.
The only way to decrease dev time these days is to reuse as much as you can from a previous project. Miles Morales took less than a year to develop because Insomniac reused a ton of touched up assets from Spider-Man. Which was fine in my opinion but some people got mad about it. I’m willing to bet Spiderman 2 has a good amount of reused assets from the previous Spiderman games and Ratchet Rift Apart in certain parts of the world to speed up development time. And people are going to complain about it.
That’s one reason proper Ray tracing (path tracing) is so critical for future generations of games. It’ll cut down on artwork materials significantly in the future once developers really learn how to leverage it. You’re offloading art design to the GPU and CPU, since the path tracing will handle lighting change needs on the materials.
@Jayslow
They could have cut about 20 hours of content out of that game and it would have been better off for it.
The entire middle section of the game was so bloated. The first part felt perfect. Then it meandered way too long in the middle. Then they completely rushed the ending.
I like Ragnarok, but ultimately I feel like it was probably one of the weakest titles in the entire franchise in my opinion.
And to be honest, studios are not much to blame for this matter since if a game comes out with average graphics or if it has less than 20 hours of content nowadays it is automatically garbage.
It reminded me of an interview with the Remedy devs saying that they had to change a lot in Alan Wake II (when compared to the first one) because the public today doesn't accept linear games that don't offer much in the replay factor and only have with 5~8 hours of story.
@xDD90x Right, backlogs are big anyway. They can take their sweet time.
@OrtadragoonX - Raf Grassetti (former Santa Monica Art Director) confirmed in a podcast last week that most of the budget goes to the first half of a game, because they have numbers showing that more than half of the people who play a game end up dropping it halfway through.
@ED_209
Which is disappointing to me.
I actually think 10 hours of main story and 10 hours of side content is the perfect game length.
It keeps people from getting burned out on the same gameplay and world. Most games these days are total slogs to get through.
Forbidden West was like that for me. The first 25 hours are so was fine. Then I had to force myself to finish the main story and started ignoring side content. Just so I could finish it.
I don't even care with those AAA games.
I can get more games every month from smaller games for kids, that's the only thing I care about.
@ED_209
The way to fix that is for them to quit making games slogs to get through. So that people will be incentivized to try and finish the game.
@ED_209 The trophy metrics back that up for all to see easily enough (less than half of HZD players played past the Proving, less than 1/4 played past the ZD project site as an example.)
It's a chicken and egg problem. As long as the game quality drops off half way, people are going to lose interest and jump to the next thing around-half way, and as long as they see that they'll keep dropping the quality half way.
Some of this is the problem of the whole modern world that decided "data driven" is the way to go. Data always tells an accurate story but it almost never tells a complete story. I always like to recall Jeff Bezos' comment about on-time deliveries when questioned years ago on it where customer perception was deliveries were increasingly delayed but data showed the opposite, and his hot take was to assume the data is flawed and perception is accurate. Like him or loathe him, he at least understands the nature of data despite being the kingpin of big data. Too many do not and assume data is always right and always everything and pin entire decisions around data and data alone even where it creates chicken and egg problems like this.
@OrtadragoonX i won't buy a game full price if its less than 25 to 30 hrs plus side content, I want more content for my 60 plus quid
So PS5 streamlining development, making it easier and quicker than ever to get the game done was a falsehood.
Unfortunate.
@tallythwack
You don’t get burned out?
Some games are made to be played for crazy amounts of time. Diablo IV is a shining example of that model.
But most of these Sony first party titles are designed in such a way that it really gets tiring by about 30 hours into them. Their gameplay isn’t strong enough for high engagement for that long.
I base a game’s worth on how much fun it gave me. Not for the length of time. I prefer a shorter game with an extremely strong gameplay loop that stays entertaining over a longer game that is good at first but it’s gameplay loop isn’t strong enough to keep it entertaining over a 50 hour period.
@OrtadragoonX thank u for this response it's actually really informative 👏 👌
@NEStalgia A bit of a sad thing is we are seeing more and more games with amazing starts and dull endings, and it seems to be missed by many of these devs that an amazing ending might not be seen by most players, but will impact those that see it turning them into evangelists that make the game go more viral.
The two most important parts of a campaign-focused games should be the start and the ending. This does not mean the middle does not mater, but its the start and the end that need to be extremely memorable. Case in point: The Last of Us.
@Uncharted2007
I think the programming side is faster now with PS5 compared to PS4 and certainly faster than the nightmare that was PS3.
But people’s raised expectations for artwork quality, audio, the length of games, etc. are steadily increasing dev time across the entire industry.
I would love to see some AAA developers buck that trend. Make a super high quality 20 hour game. Buck the trend. Ignore people who complain that it’s “too short and doesn’t have enough content.”
Most of Sony's large first party studios have at least two production teams.
Even at 6 year cycles, we would likely see a new game from these studios every 3 years as a result. Since they are likely Spaced out.
@Tharsman
And a game that did that way wrong was Ragnarok.
It starts super strong but then halfway through it slows down to a crawl and the gameplay loop isn’t strong enough to carry it through. Then the ending is just rushed and not very memorable.
They really should have cut down the middle portion of the game by half and extended the ending by about ten percent. It would have been a perfect game had they did that.
@OrtadragoonX I'd be happy with 20 hour games. I honestly get board of the bloatware we've been hammered by the last 10 years.
@Triumph741
No Mans's Sky was AMBITIOUS during development as well and look how that release day turned out. Also, Starfield is locked at 30fps and has taken 7 years to develop BECAUSE they are trying to make it big AND pretty.
I think we need to see Starfield installed on some customers' systems before we start using it as the new industry standard for game development and design.
However, if it's as good as people are claiming it will be I'll be buying my first ever X-Box.
The really unfortunate part of this is that we are likely to see only one big game from each developer per console generation now. (Unless you're Insomniac) And if one of these games happen to flop... it could mean the end of the studio
@MikeOrator Console gaming's number 1 goal is to be cheap. It's a miracle that you can play a game as ambitious as Starfield at 4k 30 for only 500 bucks. If you want it all buy a PC.
Also, we can already see the amount of systems in Starfield. There is no need to speculate about anything besides performance at launch.
@Uncharted2007
I first really realized it with Assassin’s Creed Origins.
That game starts and ends so strong. But the middle part, the main entree of the game, is so bloated that I stopped playing it for over a year before I can back and just rushed the rest of the main story. The ending was fantastic.
But the whole time I was thinking “imagine how much better this game would be if it was structured more like Assassin’s Creed II with the open world cut down to about a quarter of its actual size.”
By comparison, Returnal was a breath of fresh air for me when I played it near release. A game with relatively high modern production values but with the game structure and length of something from the Sega Saturn and PS1 era.
I really really loved Returnal and I wish more games would go that route with their overall length and time commitment. Cut the fat, focus on the point. If your gameplay loop is strong enough, I’ll still sink a crazy amount of time into it. I sunk 70 hours into a 10 hour campaign. Just playing through it over and over again.
I'd welcome that. I'm having trouble keeping up with all I wanna play anyway. And that's with already ~5h of daily playing xD
@OrtadragoonX Heck, I thought 2018 was bad with that, if Ragnarok is worse that's terrible. I still haven't beat 2018 myself because of that. I started it years ago, and then just kind of got bored by the bloated second trip to the lake and just....stopped... I've tried several times to pick it up again, and inch a little bit forward, and then just....stop..... Someday I'll do it ,and someday when Ragnarok is on a better sale I'll get it too but it definitely exudes that bloated middle to me even in the very praised 2018 affair. GoW 3 was pure adrenaline beginning to end. I liked that era.
Your point about gameplay loops is sound though. NMS has been my addiction since VR2 launched. Technically it's simple. Technically it's not very deep. But it's very broad, and the loop is so addictive, it's just hard not to do that one more thing before putting it down, every single time. Just a littlle more of this mineral, just a little bigger for that mine, just one or two more jumps to try to find that max slot S class multitool..... always just one more thing to want to do even when you think you've done it all.
...and I haven't even touched the "gaas" expeditions stuff yet. Hopefully starfield won't draw too many players off before I do.
@Tharsman A agree, though I'm not sure that's new, more of a full circle thing. It used to be all game endings sucked because it was assumed most players would never get there anyway. Then we went through a period in the PS360 era where it was assumed every player should get to the end. Now we seem to have backtracked to the old days where nobody will see the end so it doesn't matter.
@MikeOrator Bethesda's problem isn't a new one, it's an old one. Glossy flagship or not, their tools are based on ancient tools that weren't very well performing even when they were new. It's just part and parcel with Bethesda and it's a take it or leave it thing. I love their games, but the performance of their engine was terrible even on beastly PCs 20 years ago...it's just how they roll because their foundation is built on it. I'm definitely not happy with 30fps, but also not that surprised knowing how it's always been with their games. As long as it's better than Oblivion on PS3 it's a console win I guess, lol.
@Triumph741
That’s what im worried about.
Bethesda games tend to be sloppy as hell at launch performance wise.
But the game does look seriously ambitious. This is definitely Todd Howard’s labor of love and what he has been trying to build up to for more than 20 years now with his projects.
If not for having a kid on the way I’d invest in an Xbox just to play it. It looks that good.
@OrtadragoonX Wow. This is such a weird comment to see on here. Another user accused me of trolling and blocked me earlier for saying basically the same thing.
Apparently the entire testing department of Microsoft is all over Starfield so maybe the performance and polish day 1 will be acceptable.
@Triumph741
I certainly hope so. The game deserves to launch clean.
Even if it doesn’t, no one will be able to deny what Todd and his team have accomplished. He’s pulling a gameplay version of Crysis. What Crysis did for game visuals back in 2007 is what Howard and the team are trying to accomplish for gameplay in 2023. A revolution.
@OrtadragoonX the new AC games would be a lot more bearable if players could skip the open world stuff, but the leveling requirements force players to do open world stuff just to level up and be able to tackle the next story chunk, and that turns many players from ever finishing the thing at all.
@Triumph741
There may be more AMBITIOUS systems in Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. In Zelda, you can go wherever you want and build whatever you like, the exploration is the story and it runs at 30fps on outdated hardware.
Again, the proof will be in the pudding on Sept 6. We have been hyped for games before just to be disappointed and Bethesda is the worst for this. Don't get me wrong though I hope it is everything it is trying to be and I don't want it to fail but it still needs to hit the store.
@Tharsman
Exactly.
I played Valhalla until I got to the point where old dude gives you your list of objectives to do in England.
I said absolutely not dealing with this time sink (build 12 alliances, assassinate like 40 people, plus a bunch of other crap and develop your home base) and went and traded it in for store credit.
@Triumph741
Was that @Tharsman ? I can't see any of the comments he has made. He seems to upset some people though maybe he deleted himself by accident...lol...
@MikeOrator You can't really compare Zelda and Starfield. I honestly have no idea what exactly connects them in your eyes. Zelda is not that hard to run, but the switch was outdated even in 2017 so of course most games will run poorly.
@MikeOrator Yeah that tharsman guy hates people disagreeing with him. It's his prerogative of course.
Hmmmm go tell that to insomniac the company who is single handedly keeping playstation first games going.
Spiderman
Miles morales
Rachet and clank rift apart
Spiderman 2
Wolverine
Probably another ratchet and clank or a totally knew game.
I really don't think ghost 2 is 2025.
I think late 2023 or 2024.
Naughty Dog have just blown it.
I expect games to take 4 years to make thats the standard I think.
But then again every single game seems to want to be open world now. Time for a nice linear top grade game
Open world/modern day "fluff" is one of my least favourite parts of modern gaming.
Linear 1 player games like Ninja Gaiden black and Ninja Gaiden 2 are a decent length. And because the games are so good, and the diferent difficulties are challenging, the replay value is off the charts aswell.
Back in the ps1to ps3 or even 4 it took like a year.2.3.now for ps5 its even more 4 5 6 even more than that.word up son
@Triumph741
The only thing I meant by the Zelda comment is that ambitious is as ambitious does. There are a lot of interconnected pieces in TotK that would confound most other developers. In both TotK and SF, you can go anywhere, gather resources to build anything in your imagination, explore and unravel the story at your own pace, manage weapons and defenses to your style of combat, engage with NPCs that give you additional things to do, find secrets that are not on the map, discover places that seem like they were not meant to be discovered. Tell me how Starfield is different than TotK or even BotW or Elden Ring.
I am not trying to lessen Starfield, again I hope it has a perfect launch and gets 10s across the board (we all know X-Box can use the win) I am just not sure we should equate ambitious with innovative.
@Tharsman To be fair the amount of people that complain about a game not being long enough or good looking enough and of course cheap. It's not really fair to put all the blame with the developers. My biggest issue with games is it's so many times bigger than the last one. Just make it fun and a lot of games are quite big enough already.
Best not to announce them two days after you have just started the project then. 🤐
Insomniac don’t follow those rules…
@MikeOrator What pushes Starfield ahead of Elden Ring and Zelda is that in addition to the crafting systems, freedom of approach and dynamic gameplay possibilities is that you also get fully fledged cities, storylines, characters and opportunity to talk to people and influence them with money and perks. It just does everything at a high level. The only other studio to not compromise is Rockstar.
So they should start making games for PS6 because 2026 is comming soon...
I liked era of PS3. Games had around 40 hours max, graphic was generic but pretty and story flow was constant.
Now games are huge, beautiful but empty, milions of meaningless mechanics, grindy and stories are... well... no comment. Of course I'm talking about 10% of all releases because 90% is remaster or remake. It is like Hollywood. We milk some good old cow rather than put some effort into something new. Indies are sometimes saving the day, but it is like searching needle in haystack.
I just want finished games day one. If I have to wait so be it.
@Triumph741
Sure, that all sounds great and as you say, ambitious, but is it really new? I get it, we see all the things the game does and in this fresh package, we see it as innovative but have we not seen this all before just on a smaller scale?
Again, I hope it all works and the game is a resounding success. And like I said, if it's as good as the fans and the hype say it is I am getting an X-Box.
Anyway, It's nice to have, what I felt was an intelligent conversation about games. We don't need to agree about everything this new shiny toy has to at least agree it will be the biggest thing to come out this year.
@MikeOrator There is nothing truly new. Even back in the 90s computer games had mechanics deeper than most contemporary titles. Humans have been around for a while so it's safe to say that everything has been thought of before.
What makes Starfield so exciting is that you get the usual AAA package with the pretty graphics, voiced and deep dialogues, action, stealth etc and it's merged with new levels of depth and flexibility. This is what is pushing the medium forward.
Just compare the Starfied showcase to a Ubisoft game. Sure they get bigger, but the underlying mechanics have stayed the same since at least AC3. What little changes they made in Origins were ripped straight out of Witcher 3. And the writing is just bottom of the barrel.
Christ, remember FF7,8 and 9? 97,99,2000... Crazy. In 3 years, 3 incredible games were released which are huge.
And I continue to seek out games that take 4-20 hours to beat. Wholesome Direct is my favorite.
These 5-10 year dev cycles really suck.
I would much rather go back to 12-15 hour fantastic experiences that takes 2-4 years to create, even if graphics have to take a hit.
This 1 game a generation sucks.
@Triumph741 I still remember Project Ego on Xbox "anything you see in the distance you can walk to it" turned out to be Fable and while a great game in its own right, was a classic example of being far from the vision the dev talked it up to be.
Its certain from footage so far Starfield is vast, it is ambitious but without it being out and played, driving the medium forward is a bit premature, remember how long it has been in development for. Almost a case example of the point of the article.
Ubi games are bad examples but I would argue games like lets say, Journey or Pentiment, or Limbo, or Ori, do as much to "drive the medium forward" as any AAA game out there with a fraction of the development time.
Great games dont always need open worlds.
Well duh. But people are obsessed with needing new games to have 4K, 60fps+, and (checks notes for current flavour of the month) ray-tracing, and whatever other graphical nonsense. Otherwise it's "lazy" or not good enough, regardless of story, gameplay, music, characters, world, etc. Consoles have been powerful enough to make amazing games for years now, but it's never good enough for long.
@Flaming_Kaiser
Indeed, I did get to that in another comment. The reason games end up being made big is because players keep demanding bigger games.
@Jaxx420 Great games need depth and choice which Starfield provides. Those other games you mentioned don't push the medium forward. They don't have the budget.
If the games are better development time/changing engines then making worse games I'll take it if enough is put into it. If it's because things were scrapped well that happens. If we have actors/music/whatever marketing then I just don't care I'll likely take an Indie any day.
Engine changes sure, techniques changing sure makes sense. I do think making them so big and almost 1 game per gen for each studio is a bit awkward as if it struggles that's a waste of dev time no matter how many outsourcing teams or main teams. But if we see consistent design I'm going to question some, some consistent design makes sense to stay it's just the others that don't I think should go yet we still see them. For example of the walls to mask loading screens in current gen games because we shouldn't need them anymore if the hard drives and smart design to get around them with good loading tricks yet I still see them in current gen only titles because they didn't remove them when they abandoned the old gen however long ago and didn't change those elements. I'm fine with small ones for secrets but if it's long ones you bet it's still masking it and that's just not needed anymore.
I mean Forza Motorsport's trailer showed 5 seconds or so of the tuning menu/cockpit and 90% nothing. That's Fallout 76 we want to show you nothing bad. Who is their marketing department I want to know because they suck. So much nothing for what car montages/flare. XD There is nothing to get excited about when they haven't shown anything and that cost how much to show and tell us nothing?
Sick of nostalgia marketing from Sony too.
If it's to push tech then I'm curious in what way otherwise I don't care for graphics push give me mechanics pushes or other necessary things, if techniques sure but graphics why should I care and casuals can be impressed all they want I want substance. Oh wait we don't see mechanics depth happen as much or animation or AI improvements 'we should be seeing' that happen really as much.
We see actors and music (licensed soundtracks why waste money on that then original music (yes games have more original music in many ways but others with radios don't, I've played racing games with no unique menu music like Flatout 2 (even Burnout 3 I don't know if there is really any original music in it) at all and been disappointed as those that do they are so memorable and catchy I listen to them for hours) oh wait casuals don't care hence they flock to movies for oh this actor, this song used 1000s of times who cares we get it make something original and memorable) like movies do push for bigger and bigger, longer hour game lengths with so much filler that I just don't care.
I never cared for the bigger approach during PS3/360 era but the companies did and they have pushed themselves into a corner that's their fault for doing so. Then again enjoying a lot of PS3/360 era series that stayed there of one offs, trilogies/duologies left behind.
Enough old and new transitions (still some experimentation in games if we are talking not Indies or veterans forming their own studios as much as we do nowadays) and continuous design happened then and it was the last era besides the gen before of actual exciting innovation/experimentation then nowadays where it's there but either less exciting or it's in the hardware aka Switch gimmicks, aka VR, aka the Playdate, more side stuff to the experiences that I do enjoy yes but says a lot then to the games themselves.
In sixth gen we had literally besides pressure sensitive buttons more typical controllers yet games still working themselves out, some hits, some misses, some in-between and cool, some weird, some normal and not out of place today.
@Triumph741 Great games just need to be fun to play. What defines that is down to the individual gamer. Big budget doesnt always = a good game.
Way you are talking its like you have access to some Starfield review code already. Lets see come September, I am sure it will be a great game but even if it is, it is not the only one pushing the medium forward.
If open world games were the only games pushing it on the industry is in a sad state.
@Jaxx420 Say whatever you want about open games, but at least they are not linear. Now those types of games are like dinosaurs and are dragging the industry down.
I don't need to play Starfield to appreciate what Bethesda have done. Which is btw more than any Sony studio.
i'm fine with waiting if the game is good enough. make great games , and they'll be worth the wait.
@Triumph741 none of the games in my earlier post were made by Sony studios so a bit off base making that comparison.
They were all made by indies. Indie devs keep the industry fresh. Provide something new. Because they are indies a lot of the games due to dev size are linear experiences, doesnt make them dinosaurs.
You seem to be intent on just plugging Starfield into every comment so I am probably wasting time here, but linear and open world provide very different experiences, they cant be compared directly.
@Jaxx420 What other game should I use? Red Dead 2? GTA 5? There aren't a lot of industry pushing studios out there.
Yeah indie games are just games with a small budget. It doesn't make them special. Instead of saying that they 'keep the industry fresh' how about you instead boycott Ubisoft, Guerilla etc for being so lazy?
@Triumph741 just games with a small budget and not special? I recommend giving Indie Game the Movie a watch the amount of effort those people go into just to get a game out there is unreal and some indie games are absolute classics.
I dont disagree with Rockstar games pushing the envelope at all, they do. But you cant discount all linear experiences as being dinosaurs. They offer something different and there are some cracking linear games out there.
As for boycotting Ubi and Guirella for being lazy. I dont really play Ubi games so cant comment. As for Guirella Horizon is their only open world franchise so cant really say they copy and paste the same formula into all of their games. Their releases prior were mainly FPS.
@Jaxx420 I don't care about effort. It's all about the final product. If it's not good people shouldn't play it. I have enjoyed Firewatch and Furi in the past, but enough is enough. I can't imagine playing any more of them. There is just not enough meat on the bone. I want new stuff. Everyone should.
Horizon is a copy of Ubisoft's formula. The big differences they made are in the setting and enemies, but I wouldn't exactly call robot dinosaurs and animals to be creative.
@Triumph741 So basically everything you're hyping up about starfield has already been achieved in previous games like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Mass Effect, No Man's Sky and Zelda BoTW. Starfield is just a mix of things from all of those games so it's nothing revolutionary like you're making it out to be.
@Triumph741 And I take it you won't be playing games like Hellblade 2, Halo Infinite, Avowed, The outer Worlds 2, Clockwork, Gears of War, Hi-Fi Rush etc as they are all less than 20 hour games.
@UltimateOtaku91 Everything has been done before. What Starfield does is evolve the medium by providing you with many systems to play around while not sacrificing depth. It's an upgrade over any other RPG. The only 'next gen' game since Red Dead 2.
Chances are I won't play any of the games you listed. Obsidian just doesn't have the budget or talent to make games even as big as the decade old Skyrim. Outer Worlds is mediocre AF. Halo and Gears are dinosaurs, Hifi Rush is anime and I hate it so hard pass and we know nothing about Clockwork.
@NEStalgia Thats why I get more enjoyment from my PS3. Sony nailed back then.
@Triumph741
There’s still a place for linear games to make a mark in the current industry.
What bothers me about most modern games is the complete absence of advanced AI routines and a dire lack of physics simulation.
I always go back to Half-Life 2 as an example of a linear game that pushed the industry forward back in 2004. The game had a super detailed and interactive physics system combined with stellar AI for the AI enemies. Many modern games don’t match Half-Life 2’s physics or its AI.
Linear games are fine and dandy but they need to incorporate a hook. Returnal did it right in my opinion. The freedom of the game wasn’t in its level design but in how you could approach each combat encounter. The game gave you a ton of tools to work with and you developed your own strategy for taking down the enemy while taxing your reflexes.
In other words we need a variety of games from a variety of genres. There’s still a place for arcade inspired linear action like Returnal, a place for story driven games like The Last of Us, more open and deep games like Starfield, strategy games like Triangle Strategy, among dozens of other genres.
Where I feel Sony has kind of failed is that they went all in on the cinematic story driven linear experience with their 1st party lineup to their own detriment. Microsoft (up until recently) overly relied on a handful of iterative franchise releases that didn’t move forward in any appreciable way, while Nintendo plays it too safe most of the time (with the exception of Zelda).
Maybe more single-A and double-A games to cover the drought seasons, like the psx-ps2 years.
Triple-AAA and AAAA games are awesome but 5-year dev cycles are not sustainable if they take up the entire generation to make.
This is ok for the likes of Legend of Zelda and God of War. It's definitely not ok for all AAA games. A game that takes forever to create also takes a lot of money, and then you go Square-Enix about how a game sold poorly with zillions of sales. The big publishers need to start working on a roadmap distributing small, medium and big games along the way.
Again, xbox living rent free haha. I'm lucky I got my PS5 this year, means there are loads of exclusives I've to play through, but I fear that Sony will be looking at a barren line up next year, whereas Xbox will be releasing 3 to 4 of their own. Fact is, it takes longer to develop first party AAA games, xbox has had more in the pipework and now they're starting to breath, with Starfield this September and Forza, they would be wise to release Hellblade, Avowed and two more next year (that's a big if tho, I agree), but if they do, what does Sony have? I don't believe they've got something hidden up their sleeves. They seem to be relying on service games, because really what matters isn't the console sales (okay it does to a degree), but the active user base. Xbox holds gamepass as its brand now, how many active users are on there compared to Sony? I'm genuinely asking as I don't know. I suspect gamepass has more because its available on PC, too. So it seems Sony is trying to keep a steady influx of users, which will alienate and delay their AAA powerhouses =( its just my opinion, well, theory. Don't take offence, I'm not negating anything. I've got all consoles so I'm happy either way, and let's face it, Spiderman 2 is gonna blow up big time, can't wait to play it. Haha I've got Starfield and spiderman to play this year. Starfield saves me a ton of money, which I can spend on buying spiderman 2
@get2sammyb Ghost of Tsushima also released 6yrs after Infamous 2nd Son. Guerilla took 5yrs between Zero Dawn and Forbidden West and God of War Ragnarok over 4yrs despite both of these being 'Sequels' with no doubt Assets, scripts, animations etc that can be carried forward.
Spider-Man 2 may be turned round 'quickly' but they have a LOT of assets they can reuse and tweak if necessary - a lot quicker than building from scratch.
The indications are that games are taking 4yrs+ and some longer than 6yrs too...
Whether 'new' engines and focussing on 'new' hardware makes game development quicker - especially if you aren't required to bake in lighting, make different LoD models etc etc - or not, we will see, but I can't think of many Studios turning round games 'quickly' unless they are 'sequels' with 'minor' changes (like annual Sports games)
@OrtadragoonX I played valhalla for 130 hrs ,ragnarok 80,far cry 6 80hrs...I love massive maps ,I like exploring everything,collecting everything,I dont really get burned out I usually play 2 or 3 different games at the same time flitting between them,maybe thats why ,im currently playing jurrassic 2,one piece and calisto protocol,itll be all about ff16 next week though 😁
This is why Sony has multiple studios. As long as you can get 1-2 Major AAA releases a year on the PS5 then they should be fine.
I'd rather take games with smaller maps but more stuff to do like the Yakuza games which release new games every other year.
@Tharsman I agree with most of your post but I absolutely don't constantly want more games like "Uncharted Lost Legacy, Spider-Man Miles Morales and Assassin's Creed Mirage" these are all very safe iterative sequels that are only as good as they are because the original content (which took longer to make) was so good, it would get tired very quickly (As AC did in the past) if all they do is make small, safe upgrades.
What I DO want, and I think you agree with, is less fascination on length and less fascination on graphical fidelity. I want more INNOVATION in games and less safe iteration. However I think that making innovative games IS also time consuming. Look at Nintendo and their lead times for every Zelda, Mario, Metroid etc. despite not having to chase photorealism. They take so long as they have thrown out so many ideas and failed paths on the way. Good games usually take time unless you strike gold.
But what I would love to see perhaps as a compromise would be larger studios to both make large games but also pull off smaller teams led by veterans to make smaller, shorter experiences and passion projects similar to what Obsidian did with Pentiment.
Th3solution wrote:
Sadly that's not a realistic trade off. The core story is still usually 10-25 hours. The things that make these games 80 hours over 40 hours are usually just adding more cut-n-paste quests. Adding 30 fox shrines instead of 15 for example. That isn't going to change development time drastically. These are the relatively simple additions that can likely take place concurrently with things like testing and refinement of the main game.
@Tharsman For me I want fun not necessarily 300 hours of play just fun.
I was checking some of my childhood games era: Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Mafia, and Counter-Strike.
Interestingly, many games development took 2-4 years of those times already.
Also, many games storylines started before 1995.
Generally, strategy games had a good storyline, still, most of the youngsters preferred custom( or called Skirmish) gameplay more.
I think the difference between recent development and the past that players were not rushing to finish the games and expecting the next round as soon as possible. Don't take me wrong, who doesn't want to continue a great storyline?! But with my friends we had so much fun time with only a few games for years. It was a bonus when the next version came out.
Edit: I've got a little nostalgic feeling. I have to boot up at least one game now:)
I guess this is what gamers feel who grew up on PS1-2-3?
Makes perfect sense to me, we should be expecting these games to take as long as 4-5+ years now.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...