It’ll probably take less time for PlayStation hardware architect and overall industry legend Mark Cerny to design the PS6 than it will for developers to create its launch games. That’s the status of the industry as we stand, where tentpole AAA productions are now taking at least four years to finish – and the most ambitious titles take even longer.
Speaking with Games Industry.biz, the veteran developer revealed that one of his goals with the PS4 and PS5 has been to reduce the “time to triangle” – in other words, the length of time it takes to get something up on the screen. But he admitted he’s seen a lot of criticism on gaming forums about this, with development cycles running longer and longer these days.
“I probably shouldn't, but I spend a lot of time on the boards,” he admitted. “And I see people asking, ‘If the time to triangle has been greatly reduced, why is it then taking so many years to create a game?’ And the answer is that is what the teams are choosing to do. They are going after these massive creations that really do need four or six years to put together.”
Of course, as we’re witnessing with the recent State of Play and Summer Game Fest, these extensive development cycles are leaving gamers frustrated, as major software appears to have dried up. While there’s undoubtedly plenty of games to play, many are waiting on the next big hit from the likes of Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch, which still appear to be several years away.
It’s wild to think that studios beginning work on a new project today will likely have half an eye on the PS6 at this point, although we expect another long cross-gen period when we do eventually transition to a new generation, presumably around 2027 or so.
[source gamesindustry.biz]
Comments 52
Fans have been criticising this development model. Journalists and Gamer Commentators have been criticising it. Now people who work in the system have been talking about it.
The question is do the people who make the decisions force a change? Or are they so blind or worried that this is the only way to get customers attention by super sizing their game? And if there is a change will we see more sensible budget games before the PS6?
I’ve read the whole article with Marks Voice in Mind XD. He needs to make an podcast or something like that were he is talking about hardware and so on.
@TravelingBob I'd subscribe to Cerny's ASMR channel for sure.
@MrGawain I think you completely missed the message. Quality takes time especially if you want originality. The biggest issue are fans impatience because their identity is too rooted in gaming.
@Cutmastavictory sry people don’t live forever and want to experience smth that gives them utter joy while they still have the time on this earth
@Cutmastavictory
Are we getting originality from Triple A at the moment? Aside from graphical textures and lighting we’ve never seen before? To me it seems more of the same but slightly better detail in facial expressions.
Indie games and Nintendo are keeping their budgets and development times in check, and those business models are a lot healthier. It’s nice to make art, but they still have to produce a product enough people want to buy so they sell more than they spend. How can you tailor a game to a console if it takes longer to make the game than the console?
There are multiple problems, in my opinion:
This pursuit of graphical fidelity has been a complete travesty. Some games benefit. I'd argue 90% of good games would still be good if they had a low-poly bilinear texture look to them but ran at 4k 60fps.
Stop chasing that dragon and go for art direction over realism. Realistic graphics will always fall short, whereas timeless ART DIRECTION WILL REMAIN TIMELESS.
How many more physical versions of consoles will there be? Eventually, bandwidth will be universally fast enough to support gaming that can evolve without limitations of a console, right? Meaning we all can have the 'latest and greatest' without worrying about EOL equipment and constantly upgrading. Or am I reading too many sci-fi articles?
@MrGawain There are quite a few "Indie" games which exceed their budget and are then either released in an unfinished state or the studio shuts down before the release. There are just many more indie developer with a small budget that the problems are less visible. Most of the indie games do not achieve the mass appeal as big budget titles. To some extend this is due to smaller marketing budget or because they do not exploit a popular franchise. But often it is also because they do not have the production quality of big budget AAA titles.
I don't know about nintendo. Are Nintendo games really much cheaper to make and take less time? (botw? totk?).
I like the "We're not trying to build a low cost PC" line because it's true, buying a console is more than not having enough money for a pc. People who buy a console should do it because it means something, if that something is being able to play certain games or having the "cool" piece of metal it doesn't matter, any console should be more than a box that runs games.
And I absolutely LOVE the line about that one video with the pc for $500 "better" than a ps5 because is something I thought at the exact moment they specify the parts.
"They had to get a used motherboard, that was the only way that they could build a PlayStation 5 equivalent for a PlayStation 5 price. And if you're using used parts… well you can get a used PlayStation 5 for eBay for $300-something"
LOL, techbros think they are very smart and some of them are actually smart but most of their content targets people they know they can fool.
@MrGawain the fallacies you presented in your retort, the functionality of this site comment system does not allow the proper discourse to fully address it all. But to keep it short, you're mixing bad games and good games as though I'm saying every game is great. But I don't see an issue with having patience. But I also don't do the childish complaining, I just vote with my wallet. If monster hunter is pushed back a year, it'll suck of course. But I have patience and a back log 🤷🏿♂️
I have the upmost respect for this man, and can only hope he will one day make a channel to share his views/knowledge. I'm not sure it has been confirmed, but I believe his are the best hands PS6 can be in.
Completely unreal.
I will keep finding the 3rd party kids games, even on PS6 someday.
I don't even care AAA games.
I never like them.
Just bring me tons of cute kids games for PS6.
People who question about how it long it takes to make a game never have or been in a studio doing such a thing. I've never been in a games studio it's not my fortay but I even know that making a game takes a lot of time. You have and could have a few years of pre production before you even start making it via a pc, you've got storyboards, concept art, music, learning the engine or doing someone new on the engine.
Then there's voice actors doing their part, sound effects guys there's so much to do and yet all that and it still has a deadline set by the CEO and people below him. Who he has to keep shareholders happy on making sure they get a return from their investments because by not doing so they walk away.
It's not making a game for the Sega Mega Drive or PS1 it's is and has over the decades became art. And some devs want to show it on screen
Shawn Layden warned about this years ago. It would have been fascinating to see a Sony under his control and how it would have developed. Developer scope has blown out of control and gamer expectations with it.
Sony should have diversified to release more titles like uncharted lost legacy and Spiderman miles morales, and Ratchet and Clank that could be put out more regularly. Back in the PS2 days, Astrobot would never have been described as a 'smaller' title - but it has been tagged with that brush despite looking like a fully fledged ps studios banger.
These big games are getting just way too big imo. It's almost impossible to get through stuff
At this point generations are basically a thing of the past and there's no chance that a new console doesn't support old games, whilst new ones will be made for both for years.
As for how long game development time is, I just don't think it's worth it anymore. Sure some of these games can end up being great but time is the one thing that we will all run out of.
GTAVI will be at least 12 years after GTAV, Elder Scrolls VI could be closer to 20 years after Skyrim, it's already 4 years since Naughty Dog released a new game and we waited the best part of a decade for Rocksteady to release another game, only for it to be Suicide Squad and one unsuccessful game is now going to shut down a studio given the time and financial commitments required
All for what? I wouldn't say I get anymore enjoyment out of these games. It'd be good for the developers and for us gamers if the big studios started to make smaller budget games as well
Chasing shiny new graphics has got to be one of the most uninteresting aspect in gaming to me now. I could not care less how many hair strands I can see on the main character or how many rays can be traced. It's a stupid waste of time and resources, and it only makes game development longer and more expensive.
Great games stand the test of time because they great games, not because they look real. Great art direction and great game design will ALWAYS trump photorealism. I would take the visuals of Persona 5: Royal, Hi-Fi Rush, and Hollow Knight over God of War: Ragnarok and Horizon: Forbidden West 10 out of 10 times, without question. In 10 years, photorealistic games look old and outdated, but games with superb art direction and design will forever stand the test of time.
I don't need an open world racing game with storyline. Give me a straight up Ridge Racer 8, just like Ridge Racer 5 was for the PS2 launch.
Are there really so many people out there that enjoy these bloated games?
One of the side effect from the majority of gamers keeps asking devs to make better-realistic graphic and more contents to justify $60 while in the same time skipping a lot of good AA games that is cheaper, shorter, less beautiful, but still fun to play.
@Retron exactly, if anything the more photo realistic you go, the more intricate the gameplay mechanics have to be, or the more grotesque the results of your actions have to appear. Like when we see remastered games that flesh out the textures, it can make the game feel more empty. It's possible the art isn't being led by actual artists. The technical side of art can be divorced from an overall vision quite easily.
@yazzika yes to Ridge Racer 8! Remember when 7 showcased the 1080p glory of PS3 at 60fps and was actually an incredible game as well? Then nothing.
It’s worth noting that time to triangle was a focus because of how awful ps3 was for developers. Ditching complex custom designs for something grounded more in common existing technology obviously speeds up time to triangle and better api’s allow the custom parts to be easier for developers to make use of.
Mark Cerny is a developer so he made a developer friendly set of machines and having done that it is easier to maintain it going forward. Converging hardware design has made the job significantly more simple.
@gaston Nintendo seem to follow a longevity model rather than a mindless growth model. Not sure about the dev cycle but there is also the wisdom of not devaluing the game in deep discounts after only 6 months. But even if they did I'd suspect their profitability would be pretty secure.
Meanwhile Nintendo raking in the most profit making simply fun games on extremely outdated hardware.
I really hope we will see more games like astro bot.
Games maybe taking longer to make, but they aren't technically getting any 'better'. They may look far more realistic, but the Stories, the game-play loops etc aren't any better despite 'generations' of Hardware improvements.
I'd say that the PS3/360 era was the last real Generation that gave us 'experiences' unlike any other before. Since that Gen, it seems far more a focus on Graphics - delivering better resolutions, more objects, higher polygon counts etc but arguably dumbing down Game-play/Stories etc.
Things like Physics and destruction have certainly appeared to have disappeared in AAA games in favour of Static, but more detailed environments. Maybe due to such 'weak' CPU's...
It seems that Devs are spending so much time on 'Graphics' but Game-play/Stories haven't really evolved...
I waited 14 years for Cyberpunk 2077. I've played it 9 times. Well worth the wait.
I'd rather a game be released in a finished state, than released early. I'm in no hurry as I've enough games to do me till the end of time. I've only just started Tears of the kingdom. How long is that going to take me? I'm playing GT7 all the time as well. I just finished Sniper elite 4 that I picked up on PSN for €5. There's no shortage of games.
@BAMozzy
I agree with everything you are saying except - the generation that gave us the greatest experiences, was PS4 not PS3. IMHO
Yes, it's all coming to an unsustainable edge.
If there are less games, the consoles will provide less value and sell less and therefore there will be less money to be made to turn a profit on these huge projects.
And no, live services aren't the answer. They are already saturated. Nintendo holds the answer to this problem and it would be best to make the change sooner than later. Stop rushing the tech.
Perhaps spending more time making a game rather than making a movie might decrease development times and budgets.
Also, not everything needs to be open world and expansive. Some of the best games are more focused affairs.
@tinCAT-zero lord no,no,no...the ps3 gave us the uncharted games,resistance series etc..the ps4 started the whole remaster shenanigans ad infinitum so if that's your idea of the best experience then good for you but for me the ps3 era was the most exciting period.
That's the ***** show the industry is now, the forever obsession with tech specs & the cry babies wanting 4k, 60fps, raytracing is never ending. Unfortunately the ones moaning about dev times & lack of games are the cause of the whole problem. Expectations are so high its getting ridiculous.
I have to say I like big block buster games with beautiful rich worlds to explore with deep stories, and I also like shorter games which focus on a fun gameplay. I hope neither disappears.
I don't mind it takes longer to develop a new console, as the past 2 generations were quite disappointing as I really don't see/ feel a big difference & advancement from the previous'. PS5 is just like a 4 pro to me..
Skip the PS5 Pro. It's not needed, and will diminish the impact of the PS6, just as PS4 Pro has done with PS5. As I've said before, apart from loading times, I would not feel I'd missed out on anything if I was still on my PS4 Pro. Even though I was a year late getting one due to the scalpers, even now, I still feel disappointed and that I could easily have gone without.
@Retron example: Okami, best game none played and a sales flop! No, ART doesn't sell, people want fun not art. Also, nowadays advertising is among the top factors to get the average customers hyped to buy the game so that the developers survive for the next project. Just have a look at so many of them lost their jobs because of poor sales
@tinCAT-zero Remaster station 4 ? Nice
I love Cerny, since long before he was with Sony. But it really feels dishonest when he's talking about not just trying to build a budget pc. Yes he is. That's the whole reason Sony hired him instead of building consoley consoles in Japan. He went out of his way reinventing the wheel just to get a 3 month industry head start on nvme4x4. All so pc publishers can publish their games easily everywhere. On what planet is a PS5 not intended to be a cheap PC?
@Medic_alert disagree with publishers "devaluing" games with sales. They discount games to increase sales interest because sales are too low. The sale didn't devalue games. Games were discounted because the market wasn't sustaining them at the asking price. Oversupply devalues games. If you want games to maintain high value forever what you want to see is very few new games being made. If the last big RPG was launched in 2012, then the next one would surely command a $150 price tag for years to come.
Game devs had no problem in the 80s 90s or 00s and personally I loved those games more. You could argue that games are a lot more complex these days, but to cover for that we have engines and far bigger teams to cover the shortfalls
So what went wrong?
@Medic_alert chicken or egg? Anyone that would pay 70 for a video game has a few screws loose. At some point a product is just priced beyond it's real market value. So, no games ever go on sale again, everything is $70 forever and ever. Soooo.... Do consumers just start quadrupling their game spend? Doubtful. Do the just all buy the same handful of games and play them forever? The top 10 for the past decade and Skyrim tells us the later is likely. Does someone realize being cheaper gives them a market advantage (hello helldiver's). Does Chinese f2p step in and consumers abandon expensive paid games forever? And naturally older games just stop selling entirely, no long tail, as for the same price might as well get the newest thing.
Selling huge volume at low prices is the crux of the Amazon and Walmart business model and with it they've devoured all retail. It works.
It's still supply and demand. With endless mountains is games releasing, list price far exceeding real value and digital conversion stuck at retail prices despite cutting out double digit percentages to middle men, sales are going to suffer somewhere. If you force people to pay more per unit there simply going to buy less units overall, and the result of that is only the biggest companies with the biggest marketing budgets and focus tested games will succeed. Where, ironically, right now, they're the main ones losing money.
Or they could manage their budgets, lower prices, sell more units and still profit. But that makes too no much sense for the gaming industry. Meanwhile cult of the Lamb 2 will be made in a garage, cost $30, and generate 100000% more profit than skull and bones with a higher mau.....
If the state of the industry today is anything to go by I personally won't be buying a console day 1 again despite being and early adopter for multiple consoles.
I still struggle to see the value of the ps5 overall outside of a few showcases it's felt lackluster all up.
Hopefully we will get some gen 9 feeling games in the consoles back half Because everything right now feels mostly PS4 level with a better frame rate.
If you're game can be doenported to such are you really maximising the Ps5 as it stands
This is one of several reasons why I’ve suggested that we need to stop thinking in terms of “generations”. The vast majority of games coming out for PS5 started development on PS4, deverlem t takes too long.
Add to that the huge cost of AAA games that push new hardware and it makes it prohibitively expensive to make a game for just one system.
It only starts to make financial sense in the later half of a generation and then we will be into PS6 cross-gen
They should probably take more than 5 minutes developing their sh*tty OS
@Medic_alert (Long post alert!) There's a lot of factors in that I think, but it's also back to chicken and egg, and supply and demand. Yes, society "doesn't value" these things. But does society not value them because they're cheaply available? Or are they cheaply available because they aren't valued? In the 50's & 60's a new album was a rare thing. There were only a handful of recording artists, distribution was limited, and all of it felt extremely new. The ability to get your hands on a new album to play...6 or 8 whole new tracks, was a rare experience. So a high value was placed on it. Flash forward to today there's tens of thousands of recording artists past and present, seemingly everyone with a microphone can make new music and distribute it worldwide on various platforms, music isn't rare, it's everywhere, and overflowing. So we take streaming away and sell albums individually at high prices again....do they sell? Do people really dedicate scarce income and start hoarding CD collections instead of other hobbies? Do they stop gaming and start stockpiling music with their discretionary income? Will youtube still be a supply of free indie artists and replace it? Do the "big" artists then fade into obscurity? There's a quaintness to buying large amount of records that feels like it couldn't exist today. It belongs in a slower, simpler time where little things mattered more and new things weren't a click away.
Movies...those are naturally more scarce. Did cheap streaming replace the desire to go to the theater? Or did the consolidation of the neighborhood theater into a handful of regional supertheaters, followed by ever rising ticket prices so a spontaneous impulse night at the movies because a massive expense to budget for only to be in an over-large, crowded facility with annoying people replace the desire to go to the theater and streaming fill the gap? Would people return to buying large amounts of movies in the absence of streaming? Or would the fact that movies don't feel "new" anymore, don't feel fresh and rare have them just switch the TV on instead?
In some ways I think the problem is just a too-fast too-overloaded culture by definition makes everything transient and worthless (including people.) It's not about low cost options driving away demand and oversupplying as much as that in a world where everything is simultaneous, instant, unimportant, and overloading the senses, nothing can have value, and as soon as something tries to have value more than disposable, the culture just moves on and ignores it outside a small niche of enthusiasts. That's sort of what's happened to gaming. For non-enthusiasts, games are just disposable entertainment. We're competing with mobile where "free" (or the illusion of) is what it's up against. Even instant sales are really expensive compared to what the biggest gaming market there is is used to. Even Mario struggled on the mobile market with a $15.00 price tag. That's most of "gaming" right there. Even among the people, even here, that say they buy everything full price at launch....how many of those say that they then sell it quickly and recover most of their expense? And how much do they think the publisher gets for all those used copies? A lot less than the digital discount that's for sure...
But games aren't rare like the cartridge days where Nintendo artificially limited supply (illegally...) to manipulate rarity to drive prices up. And back then most people rented most of their games, and only bought a handful of important ones. Nintendo tried to stop that, too. Meanwhile, mobile, for "free" balloons forever. The problem with console isn't so much the "sale" as the fact that the market is stagnant, consisting of largely the same population to milk forever, so the notion of offering a sale is seen as "devauling" things that would have been bought anyway by a captive audience. But then, with so MANY games available, how do you get someone to buy your game vs any of the hundreds of others? Well....by making it cheaper... Are sales "down" (factoring in rental, used physical etc has been a sales killer forever), or are people's spending habits just spread through so many more games that one "big" game doesn't get the cut it used to? Or are expectations just higher? When Baldur's Gate II released selling 100,000 copies was a massive milestone that made it a top seller. Today Rebirth is a total failure at 3 million forcing the company to re-actively restructure, fast. Back in the 90's a new FF game would be one of a few releases for the whole year. Today it's one of many for the launch week and naturally one of the most expensive. There's a lot involved. But if games were to not discount so fast, I don't think many games would sell large volume at all. The "fast" sale may skip the milkable whale's maximum spend, at the cost of the "rest of the market" that would never have paid that outside a Call of Duty or GTA level release anyway. And Walmart and Amazon's success tells us selling many things at low margin is a more successful strategy than selling few things at high margin, as they eliminated everyone doing the latter by doing the former.
(sorry this didn't seem as long when I wrote it!)
There's also the issue that games are overpriced in general. People use false equivalence of "but in the 90's I remember paying..." No, you were buying a part of a computer with each game. Inside the cart was a ROM and often parts of the video card. And Nintendo controlled the prices of the carts and inflated them. The actual game was a fraction of the purchase price. The "retail" price of games isn't really based on the price of the game. $10-15 of that is a console "license fee" the platform charges the publisher (I.E. console games have been $10 more expensive than PC to cover the fee for a long time), then the pricing is based on the retail distribution model of physical. The wholesale price of the game isn't $70. When they sell the game to Walmart or Amazon, they're only charging somewhere on the order of $40-50 (Xbox is said to charge less than Sony/Nintendo and retailers actually liked selling their physical games over the latter for that reason, more profit for retailer). The rest is just markup room for the retailer to take their share. So when a digital game on their store is priced at $70, it's overpriced out of the gate. Sony/publisher's taking far more from direct sales to consumer than they are from physical sales where they're only getting $40-50 per sale. The game would be $40-50 to consumer if properly priced equal to what they're charging retailers. But they can't do that without undercutting retailers. So in that end the early "sale" is actually not "devaluing", it's a loophole to "right-price it" through a backdoor to not say they're undercutting their retail distributors. If you buy a digital game for $50 right after launch, or if you buy a "$70" game brick and mortar at launch, Sony/publisher is getting their same $50. Or more, if they had to charge $40 to the retailer, as the big stores tend to command. Charging any more than $50 for digital at launch is basically just overcharging the consumer for complex business reasons that should exist if physical were gone, but still would because people are trained now.
@NEStalgia Just wanted to tell you that I read everything you wrote, and thought you made excellent points. It was an interesting analysis with very good writing. Paragraphing and topic structuring were on point as well. Your overall combined post could be made into a great article for a website!
@Cutmastavictory your response didn't make sense - no one said this was about not having patience... it's that games have become so cost/time bloated that as Sony has a limited number of studios we (the gamers) are not getting many first party games. I chose Sony because of its first party - otherwise I'd be on XB in a flash with GamePass (even if I disagree with the principle). If Sony can't produce a good cadence of quality experiences, I may as well go elsewhere. And quality doesn't mean "best graphics" or "long gameplay"... it means time well spent. The point was only that the "bloat" doesn't need to happen, but that the expectations (and the business model) is out-of-whack.
So if you want only one major Sony game a year so you can clear your third party backlog - that sounds like a you-issue. And you're perfectly entitled to that opinion.
@NEStalgia So - having read your posts.. I think you've been stewing on this too long, and you've lost perspective. You've actually constructed a false argument... This isn't about the price of cartridges 30 years ago; or even for that matter about publisher/provider percentages today.
The point (I believe) is that the industry has now taken the view to replicate the Netflix model to compete against F2P mobile models that were successfully transplanted to console/PC. As with streaming services - the value isn't quality, it's your time. The individual gaming experience is "free" - the value is to the provider. Waiting for price drops is normal now (I buy physical games cheaper, but digitally I'll wait till the price drops... because most games actually become playable well after they release).
The original argument comes down to "does it make sense for games to take longer to make than the console they are on". The answer should be no - it doesn't make sense. The issue with indies is that if they mis-fire, they don't sell the game and move on to the next project... for the big AAA+ studios, if they don't sell the game (one per console generation) they end up making a 200+ million dollar noose for the company. So they make the most in-offensively generic games (that take 2-3x longer to play than they should just to chew your time).
Can they be creative - sure. Lack of creativity isn't the reason these games are taking so long. The MS approach is to buy enough studios to fill in those release gaps - and so it gulps up as much of the industry as it can. None of this is good for gamers. But at it's heart is the idea that what they value is your time, because in a subscription model that equals money (because you have only so much time, and it is capped almost universally).
Edit - maybe not a WALL OF TEXT next time (even though I'm guilty of the same, when I'm passionate about something)
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...