Ex-Sony Boss Shawn Layden Explains How to Make Games Faster, Cheaper

I agree with alot of what he says graphics dont make a great game and a bigger game doesnt make a better game

but both graphics and how big a game is makes it more expensive to make

@get2sammyb Actually Ronin is the perfect example, people preach that they are up for a change in how games are made in order to "save the industry" but the moment they see something that doesn't look like the "standard" the altruism's gone and they trash the game. People don't want to acknowledge they are the reason why the industry is the way it is (and why sony for example is the way it is) and there is no simple going back, just forced by other portion of people buying other kind of experiences (less expensive in both time and money) like AstroBot opening the business for new markets.

Hellblade 2 is a great looking and sounding game doesnt make it a good game and a game being 100 hours long doesn't make it a good game just means its value for money but you probably wont finish it anyway

I think developers can do both one thing studios can do is make smaller games to tide people over while they finish their big games uncharted lost legacy and Miles Morales Spiderman are perfect examples of this.

Shawn layden acting like he didnt create this problem lmao

ps4 was the sweet spot Horizon zero dawn $45 million to make Horizon forbidden west £212 million to make

Wish he could come back and run Sony 😕

@get2sammyb What actually are "worse graphics" though? In most cases, Imo, it is a lack of style.

The original Doom has style. Super Mario Brothers has style. Sonic 2 has style. Final Fantasy x has style. They have aged like fine wine despite their primitive looks because they are still wonderful to look at. A lot of games today are shamefully unimaginative when it comes to their art style.

I don't think most people actually care if a game has two blades of grass per cubic cm and a texture less than what came before. Minecraft should also be remembered here too.

Call of Duty games are great and I have bought them in the past first day on release. Now I don’t anymore because I got so frustrated paying 70 for 7 hours of single player if I play it on Veteran. I despise the franchise now tbh because single player is the smallest focus and it’s a shame. A minimum should be 15-20 hours of gameplay, but I also want good graphics

I think the problem for the game’s industry as a whole is… what the hell do gamers want!?

Nobody can ever agree or be pleased it seems.

Other issues with the industry are all the dumb mistakes developers and publishers are still making. Games releasing in extremely buggy states, marketing being misleading or over-hyped, closure of amazing studios, mismanagement from higher-ups, chasing live service, bloating your game with loot, not getting the gameplay right etc etc. These are all things that have been figured out and perfected before...
Games also need to adjust with the times. Be a little bit more self-aware about what your game will be competing against.

Layden explained: "We live in a world where only 32% of gamers actually finish the game, so we're making a lot of game that 68% of the people aren't seeing."

True and it's ironic when i look at gamers who complaint / angry about Sony doesn't show tons of new big games at SOP, as if they gonna buy and finished all games that has been showed at SGF, Xbox, and Nintendo direct in less than 24 hours. I bet those gamers not yet finish a lot of games lol.

I myself not yet buy games that already released like Helldivers 2, Unicorn Overlord, Apollo Justice trilogy, RotR, or Stellar Blade and i still have a bunch of backlogs to finish. Then there's Astro Bot, Kunitsu-Gami, MvC Collection, Doom etc that made my wishlist bigger. There are tons of games but i have less time and money to buy & finish them all.

"Next, he says developers must stop chasing photorealism, questioning whether it improves gameplay or story commensurately: "I don't believe you can get across the uncanny valley; I think that will always be just five steps ahead. So instead of chasing that, let's go back to exciting game design." He says we're past the point where most players even notice the addition of things like advanced ray tracing."

100% agreed

I just don't care about ray tracing, 4K, 8K, 120 fps, and all the mumbo jumbo crap that makes skin, hair, eyes, or frickin rocks looks more realistic. Just give me stable 30-60 fps/1080p with fun-solid gameplay, story, music, and replay value. Doesn't need to be big open world, realistic graphics, and 100 hours of contents.

Heck, i don't mind a simple to almost non-existent story as long as the gameplay is fun. Which is why i'm still playing 2D beat em up / side scroller / platformer like SOR, Double Dragon, Contra, Turtles in Time, etc.

@get2sammyb it would be a temporary “apocalypse” but it’s best to make it a choice to stop giving naysayers attention. A lot of the focus on graphical fidelity comes from marketing from a gaming industry that’s been pushing it for 3+ console generations. Games like Hades and Telltale’s The Walking Dead managed to trancend this expectation. And as far as the negative voices out there, very few of them are buying the games they are complaining about. As time moves on they fade away as these titles find their audience. This AAA paradigm is finally starting to fall and it’s going to help create the space to innovate and examine what’s worth keeping.

I have said for ages now, advanced NPC AI and physics systems, ergo greater interactivity would excite me far more than shinier graphics. As an example I remember playing FEAR way back on PC, and it always stays with me how immersive and frankly shocking it was that the enemy would vault over obstacles and flank me with unnerving sentience. Alot of games opt for minimal interactivity and top tier graphics, leading to it feeling like you're walking through a tightly curated painting (Hellblade 2 being a good example of this - on rails/nice to look at). When it comes to physics I remember playing Red Dead Redemption 1 and shooting an enemy in the foot at the top of a rickety set of wooden stairs and the way he crumpled and folded down the stairs was absolutely incredible (and this was PS3!), yet these physics systems seemed to be toned down/less affecting in the sequel - probably because fidelity was prioritised. In short - games are about interactivity, how can the industry pioneer in this regard?

The same thing happened with action movies in the 80s, throw money at it until everyone’s bored and the bubble bursts.

I just want reasonable graphics, a great frame rate, but most of all a fantastic interactive experience. No to sit through 40 hours of cut scenes and in game dialog. If I want a movie, I’ll go watch one!

@get2sammyb "the looks like a ps3 game" is more internet over exaggeration nonsense. Rise of the ronin wasn't a first party game and as such probably didn't have the budget of a first party game

I would also argue the the design of the game is more its problem than how good the graphics are

@get2sammyb whilst I appreciate high fidelity graphics, they aren't the be all and end all for me. This is why I'm still a huge fan of Nintendo, they've just shown off another bunch of new games for a console supposedly on its last legs and the new Zelda is as visually appealing as anything I've played on other hardware.

Sure there are a lot of vocal voices about graphics but you also have Minecraft, Roblox and Fortnite as amongst the most successful games in the world. Then you have GTA, we had it so good getting GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas and GTAIV in just a few years, now they're over a decade apart.

As for the time problem, I'm in that boat, this year I played Like A Dragon and FFVII Rebirth but finished neither of them and I think I've finally learned my lesson and will probably have to avoid such games in the future, they're just too long for me now

This man has hit nail in a head. PS3 era was pinacle of gaming. Games around 40 hours long, quite linear but enough space for some secrets, mostly finished on release. I've finished around 20 games in that era. Now I have similar amount of time and I've finished around 5 games? Because they are meaninglessly huge and most of time you are just running barren world (ubisoft are experts in this).

In any business you have to offer a product that will cost less than it will make so you turn profit. The truth is the audience for video games isn’t growing exponentially, and the audience who wants to spend $70 to sit and play a AAA game for 70 hours is dwindling. They need to find a sustainable product that will appeal to these people by cutting down budgets.

Stuff like Fortnite and Roblox is popular, but that market is saturated, plus it relies on the game lasting a long time with people constantly paying into it to turn a profit

. It doesn’t take a video games expert to figure out Nintendo is popular at the moment and they are making mid tier games that don’t cost $300m, and cut costs by changing art styles and being sensible on cutscenes, voice acting, and excessive NPCs and scenery. Even PlayStation must of noticed this when Astro Bot was more popular in their State Of Play than anything else combined. I’m guessing a game like that didn’t cost the same as Spider-Man 2 or Horizon to make.

I can’t say I agree with much of what he says:

Game length:
It is not the case that people do not finish games because they are too long. People do not finish games because the games are not good enough and, crucially, almost never varied enough. Neither between each other nor within themselves. And so, from a gameplay perspective, you can feel like you have seen everything a game has to offer before the ending credits roll, especially if the story is as generic as they usually are in games.

There are ways around this which would not take the devs long to implement however. I do not want good games to be shorter, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the game world has to keep growing and the story be longer etc. in my view (as largely a JRPG player) I do not mind if a game is shorter to credits if it has a good NG+ mode. For example, in the Tales of games where you earn Grade through the playthrough to change the dynamics of subsequent playthroughs. This could be used in any game to allow players more control over how they want a game to perform. I often finish a game thinking “that was good, but I wish it played like this”. For example, melee being more viable. Being able to change a game’s parameters once the story has finished brings variety without having to add a load more game.
Variety can also be provided for me through trophy challenges, but that’s hit and miss per game. Sometimes they don’t get the attention from the devs they deserve and you aren’t really encouraged to play in different ways or given unique challenges. Again, the Tales games are a positive example, where often you will be given a challenge to beat a boss in a certain way (which can often be made more realistic in subsequent playthroughs through changing things in the grade system)

Graphics:
Again, as a JRPG player, photorealism is not as important to me as art style, but even so, giving an artist more tools to create a better world is important. His example of lighting is interesting; the last “bigger” “JRPG” I played was FFXVI, and that game’s look was ruined for me by flat, unrealistic lighting. Plus, with games often being built in the same engine they will look very similar to each other. You can’t tell me this is what every artist intended. So I agree that photorealistm is not always necassary, but this doesn’t mean devs should just stop working on ways to make games look more unique and so better. Which brings us to

AI:
This is the only way to have games continue to develop without the implied necessity here to stop improving and making things better or cutting content. Imagine a world where a program can scan an artist’s painting and, with a few keywords, use it to create the look of a world that is completely in line with what an artist wants. Or imagine just being able to speak to a program and just tell it to adapt certain stock animations, such as give a disabled character a slight limp or something. It would save so much time and allow for more varied character designs and such.
So I agree with him on the importance of AI and letting the machines free. I don’t agree that this leads to more generic output though, just because it uses influence from the real world. The fact is that all humans do this too, with the added problem that they are also restricted by the limitation of their own single person’s life experience.

"We live in a world where only 32% of gamers actually finish the game"
But this is Gamepass/PSpremium thing right? This is why im against. It leads to 'snackification' of gaming. Oh you dont like this level? Delete game and download next. In the end only the clickable tile will mather to the developers.

This man is speaking facts and idk how this many people aren't finishing these games like y r u spending this much money 😐 I've beaten every game I've played in the last 25 years and that's a lot

He brings up a lot of good points when it comes to photorrealism and other resource-consuming pursuits that aren't really worth it, but cutting down on game length/content because "most people don't finish their games" is something I cannot ever agree with.

Why should I and other people who thoroughly complete their games get a shorter, poorer, lesser experience just because most players have zero commitment to anything they start? There's nothing wrong with developers making a long but rich main campaign, or putting proper effort into side content that only some will see. That is exactly where development time should be directed towards.

Games aren't movies, they don't expect you to necessarily go through an hour and half of preordained motions until the credits roll. Most account for people who want to enjoy them in different ways, explore off the beaten path, challenge themselves with content less neatly arranged for consumption than what the critical path offers.

From Soft games, for example, often lean into this. There will be huge, lore-relevant optional areas to explore (the access to which often isn't even evident), and for anyone playing blind, finding them feels immensely rewarding. The studio gets heavy praise for this kind of thing - and rightly so, because at their core that sense of surprise and wonder is what games are all about.

They also release games a lot more quickly than most of these other AAA studios with ballooning costs and dev times, mind. Because they're focusing on the aspects that truly matter, not on how detailed they can make the textures of every rock or on how much they can perfect a light reflection.

@Vdweller Yeah. PS Premium, GamePass, or Netflix are like 'all you can eat buffet'. It offers plenty of foods with cheap / affordable price to the point you just eat and asking for moreeee food without appreciation to the quality of each food that you eat.

@trev666 and both great graphics and length also add value to the game i.e. just because length and graphics alone do not make a great game they are still part of the sum which makes a great game. Also in addition to graphics and length, there is also sound, haptics, animation which get more complex and costly but also add value.

FromSoftware has clipping and bad textures, but it's gameplay and style are great, and the games are always praised. Games that are less graphically intense can utilize more of the hardware of the console as well. That's one reason why I think a lot of games are going the Fortnite/Overwatch/Valorant graphical route. Can't enter uncanny valley if you don't try to mimic reality

I don't think it is so simple i.e. that the path to a successful game is to reduce length and simplify graphics. I would say it remains to be complex task to plan a game for a certain budget, to limit the ambitions to what is possible within the limits imposed by the budget, use the available tools, techniques to their maximum.

"you're just seeing a rehash of backwards."

Are new Sony just an AI?

While I agree with most of what he says I do disagree with his take on No Man's Sky. I prefer personally designed games to procedural generation. I know that game is well liked now but I just find games that use that sort of thing heavily boring more often than not.

I'm not saying I don't want procedural generation gone completely. I just want it used in moderation.

@Vdweller "We live in a world where only 32% of gamers actually finish the game
But this is Gamepass/PSpremium thing right?"

No. This has nothing to do with Game pass/PS premium. Not everything in the industry is the fault those service.

People have been saying this for ages that gamers aren't completing games well those services existed. Games are selling "xxx" millions of copies per year, but if you look at achievement/trophies. Games that have achievement/trophies for the final level or beating the game. The % are extremely low. Most people aren't even finishing first level or tutorials based of %.

I will always say gameplay > graphics

Unfortunately the game audience is more preoccupied with graphic fidelity and teraflops than what's truly important and that is a fun game worth playing.

I stopped playing certain games because they appeal to a broader audience that won't tolerate poor graphics or no open world, even though they're not necessary for the core game (it's a turn based game). Developers are fixated on things that are not important. Look at COD, why is COD 100GB? It's an online game, it's not open world, it doesn't have a lot of voice lines, there isn't many things to do? How come Elden Ring does have all of that and more and it's ⅓ of the size?

Gaming has become inefficient because the community has unrealistic standards and the developers have little time and the stakeholders have a disconnection of what's important. As long as these are a problem, nothing will change.

And yet we keep hearing about how these new 'Game' engines will save so much 'developer' time creating their games. They don't need to make the same assets at a variety of different LoDs that will be substituted in at different draw distances, don't have to run RT on their environments only to then try and 'bake' in the Shadows etc, go in with point lighting etc to create the look of realistic lighting in that world, they can now use 'realistic' lighting in real time...

You can't tell me that Uncharted for example wasn't chasing realism in graphics and arguably Tomb Raider reboot with its more realistic Character models and facial animations was able to tell a better, more emotional and 'immersive' Story as a result.

I don't necessarily think Graphics always make a difference. Car Racing games for example have looked 'great' for years and it doesn't matter how more 'realistically' you make the rain react to light, or how many 'polygons' now make up a cars headlight, the Game-play itself hasn't really changed. That being said, I doubt any that play these aren't stunned by the Graphics, the photomodes that look like real photos or racing around tracks that 'look' more realistic with Crowds in stands etc. Whether that improves the 'moment to moment' Game-play, I guess depends on the person

I doubt Sony would be as well regarded if their Iconic AAA games like Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War etc would have had the 'impact' they did if they had been 'low' polygon games, maybe in a 'minecraft' like artstyle as I doubt the Characters, the animations - particularly facial, would have had the same emotional impact.

Video games aren't just a replacement for the 'games' people used to play - board games, indoor sports, etc. Pong was 'indoor' sports and games like Donkey Kong, Pac-Man would be a bit more like your Board Games - take it in turns to get the High Score. Story's were told more like a choose your own adventure book - with text.

Now a game can put you in the Shoes of someone suffering Psychosis, the voices they 'suffer' are now in your 'head', as close to you as they are to the lead character to give some the 'experience' of what living with Psychosis is like - but to another person, those voices are 'annoying' and not important - the challenge of Combat/Puzzle solving is most important despite the fact these are merely 'triggers' for the Voices.

As for TF's, It did make a difference - just look at the PS4 vs XB1. Sony had the higher TF's and that actually translated into a noticeable difference in the multi-platform games. How many times did Sony have higher resolution, higher graphical settings and/or higher average 'frame' rates. Even if they weren't chasing 60fps, they'd stick closer to, if not not hold 30fps better translating to a 'better' gaming experience. So even if people don't fully understand TF's, it proved more is better for hitting the 'standards' promised - 1080p (not 900p or lower), better looking shadows, or draw distances, more 'consistent' frame rates etc.

This interview mentions movies, but you don't go to a movie and have 'inconsistent' frame rates, inconsistent Frame Pacing, bugs or glitches that really stop you from progressing or mean you have to restart, terrible visual quality with tearing or annoying pop-in, graphical bugs that break the immersion etc etc. Gaming is much more an Audience participation media, its much more 'hands on' than sit back and 'be' entertained...

This guy gets it. I’ve brought up length and graphics in my arguments before on this topic.

@get2sammyb I mean, you say that about Rise of the Ronin, but the game also sold very well versus expectations and the player base it has seems to adore it. I think that discourse will always happen because the community has grown toxic, but online discourse doesn't always reflect reality.

Should the developers/publishers truly care if they can put out something that exceeds sales goals despite what people - people who VERY LIKELY were never going to buy the game anyhow - spew online?

I don't think Layden is wrong here. Especially when you look at the games that age well across generations: they're usually not photorealistic and were never trying to be, and their gameplay drives the enthusiasm/enjoyment surrounding them.

Sadly, I think it will take a lot more big budget failures before the broader market/industry corrects itself. And part of that will likely include a price correction, as well. I think what consumers truly don't like is being fed full price games that end up falling far below expectations in one or more of these sorts of categories. But for games that embrace what they are and price themselves within the market accordingly? Big success is waiting for them.

Sony played itself by allowing itself to be lured into an arms race against Microsoft and cultivating an audience that is primarily interested in playing photorealistic blockbusters that push the boundaries of console tech. Of course budgets exploded as a result.

It doesn't matter in terms of the attraction of the hardware or ecosystem itself. Of the top five highest-selling gaming platforms of all time, only one was the most powerful piece of gaming tech at the time (PS4).

@Frmknst That's a really good point. If the 'AAA' gaming industry collapsed into oblivion, we'd still have AA and indie games. Steam is absolutely packed with them.

@trev666 Holy *****! I didn't know it was that expensive!? Why, they didn't improve much on the graphics or gameplay, that I could tell. Zero Dawn is one of my favorite all time games, was a bit disappointed in the West's story though.

@PSme It's an interesting industry because what "core" and "casual" gamers want are often at odds with each other. "Casual" gamers make up a much larger subset of the consumer base, but they have the games they want already (COD, FIFA, Fortnite). "Core" gamers want the innovative and groundbreaking games, but don't generate enough revenue to make many of those games sustainable/profitable if you want to push the bounds of tech and fidelity.

Overall, there are way to many games being made to capture enough of an audience for their respective studios to thrive. I don't think there is by any means a crash like 1983 coming, but the landscape will be very different in the next 5-10 years.

Nintendo continues to be massively successful without creating games with ridiculous budgets. I know I'll probably have more fun playing Metroid Prime 4 than I will have playing anything released so far for PS5 and Series X.

I also think that AI can play a huge part in taking a lot of the grunt work away from developers and reduce costs. Microsoft is well placed to lead in that area next gen.

@__jamiie AI still has a major hurdle with copyright law. Currently assets/codes created with AI have no copyright protection so while AI will be useful with "grunt work" such as compiling, it is not an effective tool for creation if you want to ensure other people just can't steal your art/assets from the game. Although I agree MS is in a good place to start using AI to reduce costs.

@get2sammyb

While I agree that Internet communities would be unbearable, if the whole industry shifted toward riskier game/game design and being less driven by pure technological fidelity. It's not like they would have a choice ? Rise of the Ronin gets roasted because next to everything else it looks a bit more "dated". Elden Ring doesn't really scream next gen visuel and was very well recieved, Nintendo has left the "graphics above all" race and has done tremendously well with the Switch a device powered by a 2015 tablet CPU.
Either way, it is just not sustainable in the long run, Spider-Man 2 cost triple the budget of the first one but it doesn't feel 3 times prettier or more advanced. It's getting rarer and rarer to get at least two games in the same franchise on the same console generation and for what ? people will still complain that they've waited too long "for this".

I miss Shawn. He was the polar opposite of Jim Ryan.

@IamJT Absolutely. The creative side of things is not where AI is needed.

This article is inaccurate. Nintendo President Iwata foresaw this apocalyptic state of the gaming industry back in 2002:

https://youtu.be/3VO8EWdK_t8?si=2sPAh7aI5uUcK8oN

Good that Layden finally agrees, shame that he’s claiming the fame of a true foreseer, and too bad he’s not steering Sony’s ship anymore.

Bring Layden back he knows what he’s talking about!

Games don’t need to be longer they just need to be quality.

Layden gets this industry a lot better than.....certain....other people who's heads may bobble here and there.

Though I don't always a agree 100%. The length issue is a contentious one. As Sammy said in #1, the meme of "I want to play short games with worse graphics" is on point. I keep seeing people around these parts post in that vein and what they really say is "I'm a high-earning, overworked careerist with no time and want instant gratification of a sensory overload I don't have to spend much of my time on, and money is no object to me to obtain this."

On the flip side we have the approach devs have taken which is basically a play on the "Yo dawg," meme "I heard you like open worlds..." where they have, to quote the WB Games CEO "world(s) you can live, work and play in." I don't want to pay $70 for a 6 hour adventure. I also don't want to have to commit 6+ months of my year to doing nothing but grinding out shallow dailies in an empty bloated game that exists just to bloat the runtime. There needs to be a balance here.

I say that hypocritically as I engulf in FFXIV, but that's different, since it's basically a collection of 5 full size RPGs launching over a decade as one big bundle released as an episodic series. I'm just late to the party.

He's right on gfx though. I still fundamentally believe the tech arms race and push to obsessive lifelike graphics is the unfortunate crossroads of technophile creators that just want to play with the tech to see what they can do, and to make sure to pad their resume so they're not "behind" the tech, at the consumer's expense, mixed with decades of heavy funding and subsidizing of games from Nvidia, AMD (previously ATI), and 3Dfx (dating myself?), pumping money into devs to pump out ever more intense graphics, simply to justify the existence of their next year's product lineup (Only for them to then take the tech R&D'd by gamer's wallets for 30 years and turn its focus into AI for enterprise.)

Good length games, not SHORT games, but not bloated time suckers either, with good looking graphics that aren't pushing technology envelopes just to justify Blackwell to raise Jensen's market cap another billion, are what's needed. Games should be made to be fun entertainment, not to demonstrate the value of technology's future.

@Ralizah I don't think it was just boxing themselves in with MS. They started before that. PS1 they were making a big deal of their 3D graphics vs SNES (at launch) mode 7. PS2 made a huge deal out of the power of the "Emotion Engine" and PC gamers were drooling over the thing as it ran circles around our new GTS's. Sony boxing themselves into a tech wall started early on. But they at least had unique content - but most of that unique content' really wasn't theirs, it was third party, Square, Konami, etc.

Where they really ran into trouble was caving to western publishers that were primarily PC publishers, into just making a machine to play PC games on. And the graphics arms race of keeping up with the Jones's that goes with PC. They had no choice after the PS3 disaster, and that's what really ran things aground. But once a Playstation started becoming "budget PC" it started to erode its value. And while the cinematic blockbuster started with Layden, he also said at the time it wasn't sustainable, and the versions they were making then cost a fraction of what they've made since. They tried to fuse their film business and their games business, and that's a cost disaster, but it wasn't just them at the time. Remember Speilberg and Lucas at the Xbox 1 show talking about how games were the future of television and movies. The industry thought that's where the future was and that was before Sony shifted into making all moviegames.

"only one was the most powerful piece of gaming tech at the time (PS4)."

It's depressing that the PS4 which wasn't very powerful at all was the most powerful of its gen. What a sad gen overall in the market that was.....and even more depressing that that now seems like the good old days

I think playstation will be in better place now if he's still the boss of playstation instead of jim ryan back then 😕

> "I don't believe you can get across the uncanny valley; I think that will always be just five steps ahead.“

I dunno. Been playing Hellblade 2 recently and I think it’s hopped right over the valley to legit photorealism.

That said, though Hellblade 2 is absolutely stunning graphically, I’m having way more fun playing Another Crab’s Treasure, despite it’s simplistic, cartoony graphics.

@get2sammyb You've actually have the answers in your comment. The people on the internet complaining about these things are actually the smallest group. The 30% that finish games.

I see a lot of this on the internet these days. It's called the loud minority, the people with the strongest opinions are usually the ones spending time on the internet discussing games. There is a huge part of the market that doesn't even read gaming news let alone some reddit.

We should be less focused on the loud mouths, especially if you're a journalist. The opinions people give on the internet never ever paint a complete picture.

@get2sammyb well said. The amount of enjoyment I’ve gotten from rise of the ronin justifies the price tag in my eyes. Elden Ring doesn’t even need to be mentioned (660 hours thus far, the dlc will be my grave). Games that are expensive with their design and aesthetic, having purpose in their gameplay, etc will always be better than a “lifelike experience to truly live in bla bla bla”.

Good graphics don’t always mean higher quality. Spider-Man 2 was a wake up call for me to stop buying so many day one releases.

@PuppetMaster Couldn't have said it better. I could easily run Elden ring at 4K hdr attracted 120 fps on my pc but why? It’s the kind of game I want to chill on my couch and enjoy like that, not at my desk. Sure the fps dips, graphics aren’t as good but it’s more comfortable and more enjoyable as a result.

I do think there is a line to be drawn, though, when performance and quality are substandard on all spectrums. Scarlet and Violet are prime examples of this, there was nothing to scream “this is art” to me. Old pixels on the game boy felt more artistic.

I only just finished the PS5 Legacy of Thieves and man were the visuals gorgeous but you pass most of it by so quickly it's kinda disheartening as it feels wasteful.

Rebirth I think is completely warranted as you tend to have plenty of activities but I can see how hard a sell it is to increase video game prices any more.

Nintendo have been taking a more sensible approach to profitability. And even with lesser graphics, they released new stories for Xenoblade and Zelda to make full use of the worlds they developed. Very smart.

Making lot of game that 68% do not see doesn't mean much without who, what, and why. The percentage of not finished games could also increase with subs like Gamepass and Plus where sampling is easy. That along with long games that are not easy to resume play after an extended absence, and thus may need a restart.

I like both long and short games. However the longer the game the more there is to manage like inventories, leveling, perks, and more along with lots of tiny text to read to hopefully have it all explained well. Long games need to be more long game play and less management and internet searches to explain stuff.

Graphics are very important, but 4K photo realism is not at the top of the list. Graphics for me need to be sharp and not blurry along with good animation and lipsync. That can be provided 720p-1080p. 60fps needs to be the minimum as it makes the graphics smoother. Why have photo looking 4K if it just just blurs with camera movement.

Overall I want a variety of game lengths , but do not need photorealism or complicated management. Least of all I don't want teeny tiny text or to hear a developer say " it's cinematic".

@Ralizah "Sony played itself by allowing itself to be lured into an arms race against Microsoft and cultivating an audience that is primarily interested in playing photorealistic blockbusters that push the boundaries of console tech."

Can't fully blame Sony when gamers community didn't buy Sony AA games like Ape Escape, Folklore, Forbidden Siren, Gravity Rush, Tearaway, Puppeteer, Shadow of the Beast, Sly Cooper, Freedom Wars, Medievil, Sackboy, Patapon, Fat Princess, Concrete Genie, or Tokyo Jungle.

Plenty of gamers even skipped Sony AA RPG's like Rogue Galaxy, Dark Cloud 2, Wild Arms 5 & XF, Jeanne D'Arc, and Soul Sacrifice. All of these are solid RPG but with low sales numbers around 100-400K copies ww. I doubt any of these games break even or make a profit for Sony.

If those AA games sold well at least pass 1 or 2 million copies ww and made some profit, Sony will have more reasons to spend their resource for AA or experimental games.

So now it's gamers job to buy Astro Bot and Lego Horizon. Walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

I don't know about that, photorealism is more of a sympton than the problem.

The problem itself is that most big companies don't know how to manage a project, which leads to overspending on a project that didn't need a lot of money to begin with, it also lead to scope creep, mismanagement of resources and so on.

Case in point: Capcom and Sega both have been selling well, most of their game have photorealistic elements on them, but also most of their games have a limited scope and they chose a hybrid of stylized and realistic art direction in order to convey a pleasant visual experience. A good example of project management done right, they develop a game around a budget and turn profit at around 1M~2M sales.

On the other hand you have Square, who thinks that blowing their budget on graphics will make people buy their games.

The problem of the industry are not the gamers who doesn't finish the game, but the opposite: those who spend months to finish it before buying a new one. As a consumer, I'm perfectly OK with beautiful games lasting long time.

@Vdweller Actually this metric has been around since PS2 era and hasn't changed that much. And most of them don't even know why they didn't finish the game.

Ok fine, I’m all for shorter games instead of bloated epics.
But then don’t make us pay 100€ per game by 2027.

I also have been saying that we don't need a lot ultra high graphics settings for games, if it takes longer to make. I wouldn't mind a PS3/4 graphics game, if it's quicker to make. Also wouldn't mind shorter games, that's also cheap in price, but with the option to expand the story with later DLCs, if it sells well and people want more. I don't usually buy DLCs, unless it's like a sequel or extra story expansion for a game I really like. Just not DLCs like micro transactions, or when a feature is locked behind a special edition of the game, like Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth, where they put "new game +" in a paid DLC. That still bothers me. But the game is awesome haha.

@PuppetMaster oh I bought gravity rush 1 on ps vita and also soul sacrifice. I didn't realise that was by sony. Or might have forgotten haha. But yeah soul sacrifice was really good. It's kinda like monster hunter.

@get2sammyb I don't think they should do it with something like last of us, or an existing ip. But for making something new, I think it would be ok to make the game short and cheap. That way, they could have more titles out. But big companies should still keep making big games, with something small on the side would be nice.

@CutchuSlow Yeah both games was by Sony.

Gravity Rush was developed by the defunct Team Siren / Japan Studio and Soul Sacrifice was co-developed between Japan Studio, Marvelous, and Keiji Inafune. There's also an expansion called Soul Sacrifice Delta and the physical copy are quite rare in my country.

@PuppetMaster yeah thanks I knew gravity rush was by japan studio. I didn't know about soul sacrifice. But yeah I had them both on vita. Also didn't know there was an expansion for it. I wasn't on sites like these back then, so I didn't see it talked about anywhere.

@get2sammyb Then people should get used to €100 plus base games in the future. Graphics are awsome but games don't make get me as exited as on the PS1 I think it never was the graphics that made me like my PS1 that much. It was fun and exiting games with not the same cookie cutter gameplay in every game yeah it looks great and it's long but it's boring.

@get2sammyb Some people want their value for money and that's fair. Some of us just want the quality not the quantity and padding but it depends on the purpose and the person. No game can be that much quality & last a year because not viable.

Small audiences aren't much sales but over time they are? Sandbox/Vib Ribbon music to level/level editors in games are infinitely replayable. Selling GPUs/marketing terms.

Not everyone wants a 8-15 minute song & complains most are 3 minutes commonly? They want value in the song don't they? I enjoy some 8 minute songs. Games they value it differently. Ratchet was consistent 10-12 hours yet gets judged similarly by other audiences yet not by us that usually know they were that long but the content handling is different not 18 planets or similar level of bonus content skill points and other things but fewer levels but length/other aspects were offered instead. Different perception of us 20-50+ year olds yet my perception is the same as when I was kid not changed like others.

Seen the videos on worse graphics & make if shorter games. I agree with them to a degree. Sure I'm buying up old games so the prices differ a lot & the demand for them differs but I understand the then, now, & have a better perspective of current/prior. I judge games, I think of ideas for why some games could use some when they lack because other priorities.

Yeah I do buy games at $28 AUD 1 year later wait (vary of $80 on Switch to $100-120 PS5/Series & I buy PS4/Xbox One & older not 9th gen consoles), sometimes bit more, sometimes bit less, varies. $50 USB games in 7th gen & for solo campaigns less then 20 hours for some games yet 8th gen+ people want more hours? Money, time & things in the world happening makes sense. Besides the yes certain N64 games were just as expensive as games today.

So people that were fine with small hour counts in singleplayer games (fair hours in multiplayer as progression design took off, I assume player's expectations are too high in some cases), understood the quality and effort put in and with less games of some budgets as studios get cut and staff move into other studios or form new ones or whatever and many Indies games of some good ideas, some nostalgic & overly rip off safe vary. But while more games come out many of a certain quality haven't yet people want more hours? Strange.

I get something lasting a long time due to the situations in the world (or other countries currency value/consoles pricing) but do they really want anything no matter how trashy to still be a 3 hour movie let alone a 100 hour game? Do they watch for quality at all? Depends what they value of course in dialogue/visuals & for me gameplay wise most of them don't meet that.

Do they have to have everything new and now/FOMO. When they can wait for a discount, can play it next year even (waited, played retro, played year prior too), not have a warped so cheap it's dirt cheap mentality either and have to experience it? Having 1 game counts, how many want probably 10 to be a thing this year to call it a good year. Or do for a console purchase. or things to look up in some areas.

But at the same time if I know a game is short it varies, if I know what type of content in what series or new game it is & I think the balance of content is worth it. Sure 60 hour tactics games (know the series), or flops Balan/Aveum, etc. that 1 sale wouldn't save them anyways.

@get2sammyb Part 2

I do treat differently games & genres, studios quality/budget (respectfully do my research or go in blind but still go oh this many staff or first game or what I may seek).

"hours don't = the same for each game" as that's just not suitable. If people play only open worlds, RPGs/multiplayer shooters/sports/racing for their hour counts & don't care about the quality in some ways that's on them.

Previous year's games prices change, if people don't see them & have fewer games they seek out while many of us have plenty to play from any year. Having the latest.

People that want the value in the quality, no padding are very different to those wanting anything to last. They notice the Indies, know quality, notice budgets/staff count/vision, hour count, quality content, familiar/different stand out game design. Context while also an audience that watches the prices and discounts. While also not being the types to want a 100 hour game or a bad reputation game for $1 or something unreasonable because that's also a blown out of proportion logic as silly & exaggerated.

I don't find 20+ hours games fun the padding is noticeable of the open world missions as many tropes and design are clear by this point even if first time, 100th time or footage browsing to understand them or the linear but still lengthy grind or a good balance of enemies, combat, exploration (if paths or not for secrets or just simple ammo/collectibles of other worth) puzzles.

Linear games going for of story or the gameplay being so basic which many safe these days, 8th gen is why I went backwards/collected more or as strict of current gen as it is because the gameplay isn't satisfying, the movesets aren't appealing & story is pushed yet not entertaining (varies from game to game).

Foamstars were so easy to nitpick and offer modes (multiplayer example even if didn't play it observed) but they wanted business model over game design to justify it (then again many Square published games from 2022 didn't impress me either Diofield was worse than Valkyria Chronicles 4 a 2018 game in depth & priorities of gameplay/story).

Biomutant to me I went what's with the movesets for the animals being less exciting then an N64 game, where is the moveset depth of digging, swimming or flight or something else. They have gas immunity but no ability depth. They think their setting and typical dungeons is enough, it's not. The world design and visual spectacle isn't enough.

Spiderman to me was just puzzles and 3 side missions the rest was just formulaic open world design I found boring besides the passable story. Why because Sunset Overdrive had a more playground open world design and tower defense then outposts. To me they went backwards.

Racing games have long lengths, certain ones yet the events are boring, cars use cases aren't existing & we get updates that aren't worth it because what you do with the cars isn't fun. Just offering characters isn't fun. Progression sucks, sell us the same cars and yet the tracks/event types or restrictions to offer good progression isn't offered.

Lasting two weeks/a month is fair if people want a lengthy open world game, but I think some people binge a game too much/have the same values, not all are RPGs?

Not all singleplayer games have to match multiplayer hours either. Money value/quality/entertainment lasting, multiplayer/solo audience and how people treat games.

@PuppetMaster I still own that game Jeanne D'arc I had a blast on my holiday with it. And I agree people complain but don't buy in the end.

@Callmegil The Capcom poll results (gameplay, then characters looking appealing, story, graphics and others underneath) say one thing (and people that are in the know about games) and the actions/other results we don't see from other companies audiences and what games they value more in the ways they value them is telling of those that vocally or act on gameplay, characters, story, visuals and just value for money no matter how trash the content is (may be different in their eyes or just the safe range of games they play let alone the 8/10+ logic as well and 7/10 and below treatment is just sad).

Give me a AA that tries then an 8/10 AAA that priorities other things to get that score.

Or just singleplayer/multiplayer and judge all games as the same when not all are an open world or RPGs or multiplayer skin grinding shooters but they want their money's worth even if a series is consistent of hour count for those games or the genre and people skip the differences and different content handling but people see it differently. It says a lot really about people's priorities.

Let alone looks AAA is AA or Indie and because visuals look good and don't understand the budget/staff size or skill they judge it unfairly as well. Says a lot. Then again some gamers don't always understand the details of what goes into development and why meetings, why things get cut, what we look at in prototypes and so on just what they seek in a game, it coming out, as fast as possible and moving on anyways rather than those that savior it, analyse it and respect it.

@CutchuSlow I reccomend SS Delta because they added a lot of stuff that feels more like a sequel than an expansion.

@Flaming_Kaiser I wish more gamers like you and CutchuSlow who bought Sony AA games. And yeah Jeanne D'Arc is a blast and i think one of Level-5 best games. I'm sad it still stuck at PSP (or Vita) because it deserves to play by a lot of people. It would be amazing if Sony remaster it along with other RPG's rather than just port it for PS4/5 with emulator.

I may be late to the party on reading this one, but I’m glad I did.
I couldn’t agree more with what he said. I mean, each and every point quoted in the article sounds 100% on the money. These ideas sound right out of a Nintendo playbook and why they have continued to be successful during this time. Think about how refreshing and interested people are with the new Zelda game or Mario Wonder. These games aren’t anywhere near as expensive to make or take up100’s of gb of space.

@PuppetMaster I would love a LRG release with some older games to the new generation of consoles. No need for a graphics overhaul just crank up the resolution and maybe a little of a texture upgrade and with some games a control upgrade. These older games are quite cool and would be even more awesome to see them flourish again. If they can waste so much on liveservice failures this would not be such a big deal for Sony I would think.

@Chidoro Fun before everything else the worst things to see is when people are rating a game on how long it is. So you rather have 100 hours of meh or mediocre then 20 hours of fun so weird. And games don't have to look fantastic to be fun.

Not a single person pointed out something more specific. Want a bigger, more good looking and higher budget game where the consumer market isn't expanding? Increase the base price. It has barely increased this entire century.