• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

When did game development get to the point where millions of sales wasn't good enough?

DryvBy

Gold Member
I've been gaming for a really long time and I remember when Diablo 2 hit it's milestone of a million sales. It was a huge deal. Selling millions in the 80s/90s and into 00s was just a bit more rare. Eventually, games got more and more popular and for some reason it seems like we've hit a point where too many games have to hit 10s of millions to recoup. What's the deal with that?

Even indie games I'll see something stating that a million sales didn't help them recover loses. Indie games. How? And given how graphics haven't jumped this gen to astronomical wow levels, I have no idea what these budgets are going towards. Halo Infinite is a good example of bloat budgets. There's nothing revolutionary about this game but it had some incredible budget that wasn't justified.

Games are supposed to take way longer yet they're not giving us gameplay that's much better than the previous two gens. And with more advanced tools like the new UE, it seems that the games should be easier and cheaper to make. Wasn't that Matrix Awakens demo, while not a full game, done in less than a month?
 
it seems that the games should be easier and cheaper to make.

Well that's your misunderstanding right there. Games are exponentially more expensive to make these days, and licensing engines ain't cheap either.

In addition, the gaming industry (much like most other industries) is in a corporate mindset where the pursuit of constant growth is all that matters. Breaking even or making a small profit isn't enough.
 

DryvBy

Gold Member
Well that's your misunderstanding right there. Games are exponentially more expensive to make these days, and licensing engines ain't cheap either.

In addition, the gaming industry (much like most other industries) is in a corporate mindset where the pursuit of constant growth is all that matters. Breaking even or making a small profit isn't enough.

This is the topic. I asked why. Smaller teams made ground breaking games for 30 years then in the past 10 years, everything has been "this game that isn't better than the last few gens sold 4x more than the previous games, and its not profitable". I think there's more of a budgeting issue than cost of games.
 

MayauMiao

Member
This is the topic. I asked why. Smaller teams made ground breaking games for 30 years then in the past 10 years, everything has been "this game that isn't better than the last few gens sold 4x more than the previous games, and its not profitable". I think there's more of a budgeting issue than cost of games.

Smaller team means smaller losses so they can afford to do something ground breaking and not have to worry much of financial ruins.
 

MayauMiao

Member
Let's say Doom sold 200,000 copies in the first year and made money.

Which of the two will benefit the most from the sales?

The current ID software staff?

5Q5MKZO.jpeg


Or these dorks?

Q4VPvkW.jpeg
 

Three

Member
I've been gaming for a really long time and I remember when Diablo 2 hit it's milestone of a million sales. It was a huge deal. Selling millions in the 80s/90s and into 00s was just a bit more rare. Eventually, games got more and more popular and for some reason it seems like we've hit a point where too many games have to hit 10s of millions to recoup. What's the deal with that?

Even indie games I'll see something stating that a million sales didn't help them recover loses. Indie games. How? And given how graphics haven't jumped this gen to astronomical wow levels, I have no idea what these budgets are going towards. Halo Infinite is a good example of bloat budgets. There's nothing revolutionary about this game but it had some incredible budget that wasn't justified.

Games are supposed to take way longer yet they're not giving us gameplay that's much better than the previous two gens. And with more advanced tools like the new UE, it seems that the games should be easier and cheaper to make. Wasn't that Matrix Awakens demo, while not a full game, done in less than a month?
Game development costs increasing massively, inflation high, game prices remaining almost constant. You have to sell more otherwise you fall short. The ease of great graphics are improving but costs aren't really reducing even with UE.
 
Last edited:

Humdinger

Gold Member
Well, part of the issue (not the whole thing) is that making a small profit isn't enough for game companies that are publicly traded. The shareholders demand more and more money, ever-increasing profits.

Think of Tango Gameworks, for instance. They weren't shut down because their game wasn't profitable. They were shut down because their game wasn't profitable enough. It didn't generate the income that a robust GaaS title would, or even a blockbuster AAA title. That's where all the money and investment is getting funneled now, at least in the big, publicly traded corporations. As gaming has gotten bigger and more corporate, we've seen more of this. The demands for profit keep rising.

It's different when game devs own their own studio. Stellar Blade, for instance, sold "only" 1.4 million (last I heard), but that is enough for them to keep going, to keep making games. They don't have shareholders barking at them for more money and higher profits.
 
Last edited:

Lunarorbit

Member
I'll go in the opposite direction and say how in the hell does the Trails series only have 8 million sales? People were acting like it was a big deal in the original thread.

That's not an accomplishment that falcom should be proud of. The amount of hype the series has is obviously not reflected in sales. I would have assumed trails of cold steel had sold 3 million copies itself to have so many sequels
 
Capitalism demands growth and pouring more money is usually how you go about doing that.

Some of it makes sense. Assassin's Creed is a prime example it. It's magnitutes more expensive, but it's also magnitudes more profitable.

Some of it is industry stupidity. Firewalk thinks weekly CGI cutscenes are a sensible use of money for arena shooters.
 
It's different when game devs own their own studio. Stellar Blade, for instance, sold "only" 1.4 million (last I heard), but that is enough for them to keep going, to keep making games. They don't have shareholders barking at them for more money and higher profits.


The important question here is why a game like GOW Ragnarok costs 300 million whereas Stellar Blade is several times cheaper (less than 100). Both games have epic set pieces, cutscenes, and similar hours of content. There's clearly a budgeting problem in the Western studios.

We have to stop believing the "massive budget" bullshit, both in videogames and cinema. Movies like Joker and Longlegs with excellent cinematography cost ten times less than any Marvel flick.

On top of this, we have less competent developers, bad work culture, and greedy executives / shareholders. These factors have nothing to do with game development but cultural aspects of western societies.
 

PeteBull

Member
Lets not forget humongous marketing budget, guys, in some cases its 40% of whole AAA budget of the game.
Big dev team isnt even that bad, what really baloons up games budget is 6-7years of dev time, especially if game is made by western devs who have high(coz western ;p) salaries.

Here quick and dirty example of relatively cheap AA game that put many western developped games to shame

Polish dev so 4-5x lower dev salaries vs western studios, whole dev team loves the franchise, ofc no waste of money for useless sweet baby/dei hires.
Relatively short dev time:
Piotr Łatocha, Game Director of RoboCop: Rogue City, revealed in an interview that it took the team a total of 3 years to fully develop the game

sales wise we know:
In the United Kingdom, RoboCop: Rogue City debuted at 4th place in the physical charts.[37] The next week, the game fell to 13th place, after a 64% decrease in sales.[38]
Rogue City exceeded Nacon's expectations and was the publisher's biggest launch, with the game reaching 435,000 players in its first two weeks since release.

Ofc since game wasnt woke reviewers didnt give it any brownie points, but fk that, sales were great nonetheless, coz budget was fitting for the type of the game they made :)
https://www.metacritic.com/game/robocop-rogue-city/ 72metacritic score from reviewers, but like in many cases of good games that arent woke- much higher user score 8,3.
Edit:
same on steam, 87% of last 30days players reviews very positive, 90% of all(almost 9k total) player reviews very positive too.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Well, part of the issue (not the whole thing) is that making a small profit isn't enough for game companies that are publicly traded. The shareholders demand more and more money, ever-increasing profits.

Think of Tango Gameworks, for instance. They weren't shut down because their game wasn't profitable. They were shut down because their game wasn't profitable enough. It didn't generate the income that a robust GaaS title would, or even a blockbuster AAA title. That's where all the money and investment is getting funneled now, at least in the big, publicly traded corporations. As gaming has gotten bigger and more corporate, we've seen more of this. The demands for profit keep rising.

It's different when game devs own their own studio. Stellar Blade, for instance, sold "only" 1.4 million (last I heard), but that is enough for them to keep going, to keep making games. They don't have shareholders barking at them for more money and higher profits.
Shareholders could never see the profitability of Tango Gameworks anyway and have no power in shutting them down. A company chasing only large scale is another matter but it's really not about being private or public.
 

Robb

Gold Member
Where do you want to begin? Pretty much every AAA game has full voice acting, humongous scope, often use the likeness of famous actors, use motion capture, use licensed engines, has huge development teams that are also supported by consultants, have humongous marketing costs etc. etc. etc.

I’d say the snowball started rolling on PS3/360 and have only gotten bigger over time.
 
Last edited:

Humdinger

Gold Member
Shareholders could never see the profitability of Tango Gameworks anyway and have no power in shutting them down.

Well, the shareholders don't see it directly, but Microsoft sure does. And Microsoft is well aware of what the shareholders want.
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
It is the strategy of people with money to use their deep pockets to drive up budgets and expectations so that they have less competition. This is why there was such a shift to cinematic story telling, due to its ability to be a near bottomless money pit. Now people complain that there is a "content drought" of these games on their consoles, and they have to wait so long for just one must buy title. What a shock, totally not the plan all along.
 
Last edited:

Humdinger

Gold Member
The important question here is why a game like GOW Ragnarok costs 300 million whereas Stellar Blade is several times cheaper (less than 100). Both games have epic set pieces, cutscenes, and similar hours of content. There's clearly a budgeting problem in the Western studios.

Agreed. As I said, what I pointed out (shareholder demand) was just part of the picture, not the whole thing. There are multiple problems, all feeding in at once.

I suspect that all the administrative and management layers in large corporations contribute to the overspending you're talking about. Not just their salaries, but their decisions to put money into dumb stuff (like famous actors and whatnot).
 
Last edited:

Fess

Member
More people, higher salaries, more details, more realism, more acting and motion capture, longer dev time, and game prices mostly stay the same.
 
Last edited:
Once Hollywood got heavily involved, so around early-middle 8th gen.

Just notice the correlation between increased Hollywood involvement (writers, directors, VAs, mo-cap, consultation etc.) and the ballooning of game budgets. Look at the costs for licensing Spiderman & X-Men SIE (are choosing to) pay. And people want them to buy more superhero IP rights in stuff like Batman? Inflation hasn't helped, but that isn't the only factor.

Those mentioning greedy CEOs stuffing their pockets as top priority also have a point.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Wasn't that Matrix Awakens demo, while not a full game, done in less than a month?
The way I remember official line was close to a year with a team of 50+. TLDR - demos on that scale aren't cheap.

This is the topic. I asked why.
Same reasons holywood budgets continue to inflate. High-profile games have been chasing that line for over 3 decades - modern full-priced releases are expected to look like modern movies first, everything else after. And when production costs do get optimised - any savings are funneled into more iterations to further improve the production value(which has no upper limits really), so there's no way to flip the curve, not really.

There's nothing revolutionary about this game but it had some incredible budget that wasn't justified.
High-budgets are also attached to safe projects - first and foremost. There's not supposed to be anything revolutionary because that only increases risks. The exceptions that exist to this rule are pretty exclusively outside of the corporate machinery (Eg. religious crowd-funds or auteurs with enough financial clout to afford it).
 

Hypereides

Gold Member
I reckon it was when big investment banking firms bought a slice into the industry, around the early 7th gen, and began to funnel large sums into it to demand higher dividends in return. A humble "couple" of million units or so became "little league" and didn't cut it anymore. Its been a steady rising slope since then.

I'd even claim we, the gaming community who actually play video games, probably aren't really considered the actual customers in this exchange now. These firms are the "actual" clientele. We're just a convenient siphon for their payouts.

Someone could probably draft a graph visualising how authenticity declined in parallel with how much cash went into higher budget AAA game development.
 

STARSBarry

Gold Member
Stock market. Studios and publishers didn't used to be on the beck and call of shareholders, and if they where it was long term investment. These days it's about shorter term growth and if you miss a year everyone sells up.
 

tkscz

Member
I've been gaming for a really long time and I remember when Diablo 2 hit it's milestone of a million sales. It was a huge deal. Selling millions in the 80s/90s and into 00s was just a bit more rare. Eventually, games got more and more popular and for some reason it seems like we've hit a point where too many games have to hit 10s of millions to recoup. What's the deal with that?

Even indie games I'll see something stating that a million sales didn't help them recover loses. Indie games. How? And given how graphics haven't jumped this gen to astronomical wow levels, I have no idea what these budgets are going towards. Halo Infinite is a good example of bloat budgets. There's nothing revolutionary about this game but it had some incredible budget that wasn't justified.

Games are supposed to take way longer yet they're not giving us gameplay that's much better than the previous two gens. And with more advanced tools like the new UE, it seems that the games should be easier and cheaper to make. Wasn't that Matrix Awakens demo, while not a full game, done in less than a month?
Oh we can go into this in detail, though not completely but in quite a bit.

First and foremost, costs like staff, equipment and office will already send you into the hundreds of thousands to the millions depending on the amount of staff members you have. Back in the day you could make games with 20 people in a garage with a bunch of office computers, but today, even an indie team can reach over 100 employees, computers have to have GPUs that cost up to $6,000 per computer and an office can have a yearly rent of $500,000 at the low end. So let's say 60 of your 100 staff uses the high end desktops to make the game. That's 60 desktops that can cost $10k at the least. Then there is the cost of other equipment like servers for storage and other programs, the network cost, and contractor cost, that's millions before even creating a single game.

Then we get into development and the time it takes to make a game. You have to pay your employees an hourly wage at the lowest of $15 an hour. If they have to crunch then you have to pay overtime as well. With games taking 3 to 5 years to make, that's 26280 to 43800 for 100 people. At the lowest rate of $15 an hour, that's at least $394,200 to $657,000 at the very low end, this assuming your office is in a cheaper state. If you're in somewhere like California, you're looking at an average of $28 an hour, that's $735,840 to $1,226,400. Then you have to determine if you're making an engine from scratch, which would add another year or two and hiring coders who have the ability to do that who would go for $30 - $40 an hour, or if you're going with middlewear like Unreal Engine, which will cost you $1,850 per person per year, so with say 60 programmers and artist using UE5 for five years you're looking at roughly $555,000 for that one game.

Now let's skip some extra cost like taxes and other fees and go straight into publishing. Say you say this game is worth the current $70 and you manage to get that one million unit sales, that's a net of $70 million. Now, subtract the cost of development which was around $10million, that leaves you with $60million. Now for the big costs. Licenses fees, publisher fees, if you went with middleware, they now get a percent of whatever you make like the publishers and the cost of hosting for digital sales. So let's say you only put this game only on steam. Well, whatever you make after you pay off the development cost, Valve gets 30% of what you make, whoever published the game for you gets 30% and again, Epic or whatever middleware you may have went with, takes %5 of the money. So of that $60million, you lose another $39million, leaving you with $21million. But you also need to pay money to advertise the game, this one pretty much will leave you in the negative depending on how you're trying to advertise the game.

Now imagine all that PLUS more licensing fees when you have physical copies and publish on consoles. Selling one million units won't earn you enough for any of that to matter.
 
The way I remember official line was close to a year with a team of 50+. TLDR - demos on that scale aren't cheap.


Same reasons holywood budgets continue to inflate. High-profile games have been chasing that line for over 3 decades - modern full-priced releases are expected to look like modern movies first, everything else after. And when production costs do get optimised - any savings are funneled into more iterations to further improve the production value(which has no upper limits really), so there's no way to flip the curve, not really.


High-budgets are also attached to safe projects - first and foremost. There's not supposed to be anything revolutionary because that only increases risks. The exceptions that exist to this rule are pretty exclusively outside of the corporate machinery (Eg. religious crowd-funds or auteurs with enough financial clout to afford it).

Yep and again this is part of the reason with the WB rumors, I DON'T want to see Sony/SIE go for Batman, DC or even MK rights. I'm sure the costs to buy the Batman license would be at least as much as what it's costing them to have the X-Men gaming license for the next 10 years, as I'm assuming something like the Batman license would be exclusive.

But I'm already 50/50 with Insomniac's pipeline basically being Marvel content until R&C 2030, and I don't want to see other SIE studios get bogged down with big licensed games either. Because as you said, you can only really make safe bets with licenses this big. You can't take the type of creative chances or more modest budgets original IP (specifically ones catered to gaming in mind, which among AAA you rarely see outside of companies like say Nintendo) would allow.

A future where Insomniac's stuck on Marvel/X-Men & any number of other SIE studios are stuck on Batman, WW, The Flash, Superman, and MK games would just be depressing. Especially knowing those would all be AAA games, and knowing the amount of time, team sizes, and budgets they'd command. We'd just end up with slightly prettier versions of what's already come before.

That said....still have to say the idea of a Naughty Dog-developed Game of Thrones title is extremely intriguing (and at least it'd be a break from the superhero stuff).
 

nemiroff

Gold Member
IIRC, in the Atari 2600 days it took one or so person from 6 weeks (or even less) to about 3-4 months to make a game.
 
Last edited:

ReyBrujo

Member
That's an interesting question. If you don't count Pacman for Atari (which sold millions and would have turned profit if not for the extra million copies they printed above their installed playerbase) one of the first games that I know had a huge budget, sold millions and was still a commercial failure was Shenmue for Dreamcast. So, that might have been the beginning.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
Games are so complex these days it's hard to create a game with your own engine. Having to license an engine massively reduces your margins, but it also allows you to quickly staff up and get going on a game concept. Time is one of the most expensive factors in game development. When you have large teams everything is multiplied by factors of time.

Games have to be so detailed graphically now that you can't get away with having a small staff working on a game. When elements of gaming could be left to the imagination, you didn't have to have a ton of people building out details.

Timeline.jpg


I think people somehow believe that just because technology improves that somehow it still requires the same number of people to work on a project.

You also have inflation. Everyone wants brand new games to be 50 dollars, but not only has the number of employees increased but their salaries as well.

The cost to organize these people is also more expensive i.e. slack, outlook, endpoint management... then you have security as well.

  • More people
  • Inflation
  • Largely fixed sale prices
  • Decreased margins
  • Increased time to develop games
  • More expensive software and tools
  • More competition
  • Marketing costs
  • Increased IP licensing costs
  • Development on multiple platforms and generations
 

IAmRei

Member
TLDR: Game are became big, and the cost to make is bigger, and thus company need more m sales to justify the cost to produce.

Simple explanation:
Assuming million sales are $60 x 1.000.000 is 60.000.000

Then you will still need to pay platform holder, and if you have publisher, you will need to pay them too, as well as filling the production cost they sent to you while developing the game, and marketing cost

Then yes, the cut it self might reduce 30-60% which you only get 18m

Then how much the game cost? If the game development cost 5m, its not too far, but whhat if the dev cost are 10m? What if the marketing cost are 5m?

There are better explanation

But the game development as not as cheap as before.

Devcost in western are the most pricey.
$5000 per month x 10 devs are hitting 50.000, so what about other cost? Space rent, software sub, hardware, electric and net cost, etc

The calculation is rough, but it can hit 1m cost for indies annually just for one game.

And thats indie, not counting AAA, i heard one dev might cost more than 10.000 each person per month, and just multiply with xx person/roles to develop game.

See the problem?
 

Ceadeus

Member
Imagine re-releasing some of the old school consoles today. Nintendo manufacturing GBA again and Sony the original PlayStation. It would be cheap and fast to develop. The games would be insanely cool , the developers would go crazy and have fun.

Imagine going to Walmart and having a wall full of 99$ GBA and PS1 , wall full of new games in their original packaging.
 

cireza

Member
1) Budgets are way too high
2) Money is used to pay too many useless people
3) Money is used because of the absurd complexity of the infinite stack of middlewares and engines, often useless for the game

There are examples of less expensive games out there that are infinitely better than AAA games, so there is still a way obviously. For example Brigandine, a game I have been playing regularly since it's release. The game looks very good, has great art and music, gameplay is perfect, no bloat of any kind. This is one of the best games from recent years, and it deserves the title of "game" in every way.

As AAA games have been throwing themselves in a corner, they have become less and less attractive to me. I simply can't find anything appealing in most big games recently. And this includes many Japanese games, that are bloated to no end as well. Better hardware has never been more useless to me.
 
Last edited:

hemo memo

You can't die before your death
Let's say Doom sold 200,000 copies in the first year and made money.

Which of the two will benefit the most from the sales?

The current ID software staff?

5Q5MKZO.jpeg


Or these dorks?

Q4VPvkW.jpeg
The dorks who created a global phenomenon with no marketing and relying on pure word of mouth and without social media or modern internet.
 

HL3.exe

Member
Around the end of the 7th gen I'd say.

Most independent AA studios and traditional publisher funding models became unsustainable, when developers had to compete with international multi-dev team projects.
 
Last edited:
Since Corporate CEOs and investors took over gaming.


Now constant growth is all that matters for game development, and CEOs and company executives still want their massive bonuses even if it's at the expense of the game and the game developers actually making the games.


Yea, 4K graphics and whatnot cost more money to make now but they aren't the main reason games are so expensive to make and some companies aren't satisfied with millions in sales anymore. The truth is big corporations will never be satisfied with simply making money from games. Constant growth and constant revenue is the holy grail for companies now. Everyone is trying to be the next Fortnite, COD or GTA. Even if you somehow manage to bring game budgets down by getting rid of positions that aren't needed or having cheaper and more efficient ways to make games, you'll still find companies saying that it isn't enough and they need more to prevent shutdown and cutting jobs. It's never-ending cycle that gaming is stuck in and will probably never get out of.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom