Nah. I remain hopeful that this is a market correction against live service investment. Devs will be hurt in the interim, but think about how something like Redfall happened. The suits said they had to make a live service game at Arkane. Arkane devs had no passion for that. 70% of the studio left, leaving Redfall’s development to inexperienced new hires that replaced them, and they essentially set those development funds on fire making that game that no one wanted to spend money on. Sega made Hyenas for $70M, their most expensive project to date, and decided it was better to just not release it than to continue to run infrastructure to enable it. A similar story to Hyenas over at Sony, where they cut their live service portfolio down from 12 games to 6, seeing that the well had run dry. There have been a lot of these bets made, and they’ve been big bets, with the assumption that they’d see all the success that their predecessors in live service games had, without realizing that there aren’t enough customers out there for you to be lucky enough to capture that success from when they’re busy playing other games.
So what do all of these devs make instead? Video games that people actually want to play and spend money on, that can be made with budgets they can afford.
Sure, the death of the live service hype plays a role, too, but in my view it is mostly due to the gravy train of cheap money coming to a halt: Lots of companies are scaling back because they had funded themselves with loans while laundering profits through tax havens. Gaming companies are not much different from tech companies and media companies in this regard. Those are also in hot water ATM and fire people in order to stabilize their cash flow.
At the end of the day, gaming companies are going to invest far less in the future. Games such as “Spider-Man 2” and other AAA titles with exorbitant budgets will become rare. This has been a trend for years.
Thus I am rather certain that 2023 was one of the last years where we have seen a strong line-up of high quality, high budget titles alongside indie success stories.
It has been a trend that we see fewer AAA games per year, for a very long time. I think that can easily stabilize at a number of AAA games similar to what we saw last year, when we stop designing games that take up infinite time to play. Likewise, a great year for games doesn’t mean that so many of them are concentrated in the AAA space. Hollow Knight Silksong, Mina the Hollower, and Penny’s Big Breakaway could, potentially, all be some of the best games we’ve ever played, and not one of them will have come close to a $100M budget. (I don’t think this year will top last year, but my point is that it doesn’t require massive budgets to do so.)
There’s also the AA scene to consider. Nacon did a fantastic job with the RoboCop game - it doesn’t break any new ground, but it’s a simple, solid game that captures the tone of the RoboCop franchise well.
Nah. I remain hopeful that this is a market correction against live service investment. Devs will be hurt in the interim, but think about how something like Redfall happened. The suits said they had to make a live service game at Arkane. Arkane devs had no passion for that. 70% of the studio left, leaving Redfall’s development to inexperienced new hires that replaced them, and they essentially set those development funds on fire making that game that no one wanted to spend money on. Sega made Hyenas for $70M, their most expensive project to date, and decided it was better to just not release it than to continue to run infrastructure to enable it. A similar story to Hyenas over at Sony, where they cut their live service portfolio down from 12 games to 6, seeing that the well had run dry. There have been a lot of these bets made, and they’ve been big bets, with the assumption that they’d see all the success that their predecessors in live service games had, without realizing that there aren’t enough customers out there for you to be lucky enough to capture that success from when they’re busy playing other games.
So what do all of these devs make instead? Video games that people actually want to play and spend money on, that can be made with budgets they can afford.
Sure, the death of the live service hype plays a role, too, but in my view it is mostly due to the gravy train of cheap money coming to a halt: Lots of companies are scaling back because they had funded themselves with loans while laundering profits through tax havens. Gaming companies are not much different from tech companies and media companies in this regard. Those are also in hot water ATM and fire people in order to stabilize their cash flow.
At the end of the day, gaming companies are going to invest far less in the future. Games such as “Spider-Man 2” and other AAA titles with exorbitant budgets will become rare. This has been a trend for years.
Thus I am rather certain that 2023 was one of the last years where we have seen a strong line-up of high quality, high budget titles alongside indie success stories.
It has been a trend that we see fewer AAA games per year, for a very long time. I think that can easily stabilize at a number of AAA games similar to what we saw last year, when we stop designing games that take up infinite time to play. Likewise, a great year for games doesn’t mean that so many of them are concentrated in the AAA space. Hollow Knight Silksong, Mina the Hollower, and Penny’s Big Breakaway could, potentially, all be some of the best games we’ve ever played, and not one of them will have come close to a $100M budget. (I don’t think this year will top last year, but my point is that it doesn’t require massive budgets to do so.)
There’s also the AA scene to consider. Nacon did a fantastic job with the RoboCop game - it doesn’t break any new ground, but it’s a simple, solid game that captures the tone of the RoboCop franchise well.