Long AAA dev cycles make games already out of date when they chase trends... discuss!

[Eighthours]

Here's a decent Twitter thread from Jeremy Peel, articulating what I've increasingly been thinking about the boneheadedness of some decisions in the development of AAA games:

 

 

I think the writing was on the wall for any new live service games a while ago, so Suicide Squad had plenty of time to avoid the jaws of doom.

 

So what do you think? Is AAA well behind the curve? If you accept Jeremy's premise, how can developers and publishers solve the problem of long development cycles making their megabudget games out of date before they've even had the chance to go on sale? But maybe you don't think this is the case at all. Tell Jeremy (in this thread, rather than to his face) why he's wrong!

 

For me, decent single player games will never go out of fashion, so make one of those (particularly if you're renowned for them, like Rocksteady) and don't be ultra-greedy chasing a trend that may well have vanished by the time you can finish your game! It's curious to me how Sony, which understands how single player games can sell extremely well maybe more than any other publisher, is planning to publish a slew of live service games over the next few years. True, it stands a chance of making one of them properly stick more than most publishers, and maybe that's enough to make up for the rest if they fail, but it's still a weird move. And what will be the next trend? Maybe try to create it yourself, rather than copying a current one while hoping that the train will still be in the station when you arrive!

[Qazimod]

Short dev cycles designed to chase trends is how we get the likes of Radical Heights. I’d prefer people to take time making something that’s polished and fun.

[thesnwmn]

I think this states the obvious.

 

I'm not sure it actually matters all that much outside of games that are designed to be a lifestyle rather than a one and done or at least relatively short lived obsession.

 

If you build a single player game taping into a theme of games and it misses the popularity of that genre or theme then a good game will still perform.well enough I think.

 

But when you build a lifestyle game (think battle passes, think MMOs, think looter shooter, etc) then you have to be in the early arrivals. If you turn up a year later, let alone 4 or 5 (like Suicide Squad) you're fucked. The player base is invested elsewhere. It really doesn't matter how good your game is. If it's not fundamentally different then it will be greeted with a shrug. World of Warcraft did this before.

 

What's funny to me is that even when they were commissioning these projects it was too late. Its a terrible understanding of the product you're planning on building. You cannot build a second job game just like the others when everyone already has one. Even if you can deliver it in a short period (say one year) you're too late.

[easilydone]

42 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

I think this states the obvious.

 

I'm not sure it actually matters all that much outside of games that are designed to be a lifestyle rather than a one and done or at least relatively short lived obsession.

 

If you build a single player game taping into a theme of games and it misses the popularity of that genre or theme then a good game will still perform.well enough I think.

 

But when you build a lifestyle game (think battle passes, think MMOs, think looter shooter, etc) then you have to be in the early arrivals. If you turn up a year later, let alone 4 or 5 (like Suicide Squad) you're fucked. The player base is invested elsewhere. It really doesn't matter how good your game is. If it's not fundamentally different then it will be greeted with a shrug. World of Warcraft did this before.

 

What's funny to me is that even when they were commissioning these projects it was too late. Its a terrible understanding of the product you're planning on building. You cannot build a second job game just like the others when everyone already has one. Even if you can deliver it in a short period (say one year) you're too late.

I think your WoW one is the perfect one here. Look at the decade of MMORPGs that were released in its wake with few lasting more than a couple of years and none made in the same style being anywhere near as successful. Unless you include something new then why would anyone swap out all that sunk investment? 
 

It feels like AAA games almost have to separate the assets pipeline from the game creation side. Build a game in a pre-built world to have any chance of having anything ‘current’. Obviously I have no idea how you would do that without wasting a tonne of resources. 

[cassidy]

Fuck we've reached the endgame agile vs waterfall delivery in game dev. Which is best. 

 

There's only one way to find out.... 

 

Fight

[MattyP]

Long dev cycles in games is one thing that is actually putting me off gaming to a degree. I mean around 5 years for a game like say The Last Of Us? I know they are fantastic quality and all but I'm not getting younger...  Also the hardware keeps cycling around fairly quickly too so as shown this gen we are effectively playing souped up PS4 games on PS5 (for example). Two years in and we have only had a few games you could say are truly a next gen PS5 game.

 

Not really sure where gaming is going really as generations go on. But there is still plenty of variety I guess and you need to cherry pick what you enjoy. I mean I'd love another  Mario game or Uncharted type game but I know I'll be waiting probably years to play such games.

 

Think I preferred around the 360/PS3 era of gaming TBH as there were plenty of good quality games with great ideas etc. Now it seems mostly big heavy hitter AAA games that take years to get a release or lots of indie type games that don't quite have the production values of the older 360/PS3 games IMHO. I mean for example it's been 5 years since the last Forza Motorsport release on a XBox?! Etc etc. 

 

 I guess AAA games aren't really my bag these days to be fair. Don't have the time for 30+ hour games or wait around for releases when I can get my gaming kicks elsewhere.

 

[Siri]

I'm a broken record at this point between the Steam thread and the Deck thread, but the two main aspects of the industry that keeps me interested these days are the retro and indie/small publisher scenes.

 

Since Steam Next Fest has been a staple, I've been consistently excited about all the cool videogames coming out throughout the year because I've actually been able to play the fucking things and get excited in the first place.

 

I couldn't give a shit if you need to put in a massive open world into your game for reasons, neither do I give a shit about live services or a five year plan with millions of marketing budget to stay in the public eye. Make a good vertical slice of a game, put it in front of me, and I'll actually buy it at launch because it's fun. What a concept.

[Benny]

The best dev cycle is whatever produces more Hadeses and Pentimentses. Hobbitses.

[thesnwmn]

Thing is, it's not just be classic AAA stuff that can take an age to develop.

 

Sliksong for example (reminded by the thread's bump today) was announced in 2019. And was probably in active development for some period before that. So 4/5 years.

 

But that's fine. Its not chasing something. It is its own beast.

 

And when it is AAA it can do fine with long development times. Take most of Sony's first party stuff. Each game takes a while of development but they're high quality standalone experiences.

Don't get me wrong. I'd rather that big (in whatever way) games were closer 3 year development cycles rather than 5. But I'm happy to wait given the wealth of content generally coming out.

There is one other element that's interesting I think from a brand development perspective. How long can a series survive between releases? MS I'd suggest struggles with this. Gears feels dead. Halo looks irrelevant. Forza Motorsport is lucky it's Horizon spinoff still exists to maintain the brand because the main series exists only as a memory given you cannot buy one any more. The later is just another darn car game. That they couldn't turn around the next installment in time for, or close to, the Series release is insane. Do most people care any more?

[Stanley]

33 minutes ago, Benny said:

The best dev cycle is whatever produces more Hadeses and Pentimentses. Hobbitses.

Hardly any Hobbitses games come out precious. 

[Flanders]

I think you can chase as many trends as you want as long as you make something coherent that people like. Assassin’s Creed Valhalla and Hitman World of Assassination are basically live service games in their post-release models, but they’re fully functional single player experiences as well so they get the best of both worlds. 
 

You could chase the Destiny trend just fine as long as you shaped the game to that structure appropriately. The problem with the Avengers/Gotham Knights/Suicide Squad trio is that a superhero game is completely antithetical to that structure. Everyone would have thought an Avengers Destiny-a-like was dumb back in 2013, it’s not the development time that was the problem there. 

[footle]

39 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

 

There is one other element that's interesting I think from a brand development perspective. How long can a series survive between releases? MS I'd suggest struggles with this. Gears feels dead. Halo looks irrelevant. Forza Motorsport is lucky its Horizon spinoff still exists to maintain the brand because the main series exists only as a memory given you cannot buy one any more. The later is just another darn car game. That they couldn't turn around the next installment in time for, or close to, the Series release is insane. Do most people care any more?

The last Zelda game was 2017. The last horizon game before last year was 2017.

The last mainline gears game was 2019.

 

I’d suggest we’re just seeing the very very long game dev cycles writ large.

[Stanley]

14 minutes ago, footle said:

The last Zelda game was 2017. The last horizon game before last year was 2017.

The last mainline gears game was 2019.

 

I’d suggest we’re just seeing the very very long game dev cycles writ large.

The last Mario Kart was 2014 

[Nick R]

I take it this thread has mainly been prompted by attempts to shoehorn games into a live service template, like the jump from Arkham Knight to SSKTJL.

 

But arguably, another example of trend-chasing leading to lengthened dev time is when a game series takes the gameplay mechanics that were well-established in numerous previous entries, and expands them into an open world setting.

 

If so, both Halo Infinite and Elden Ring could be accused of doing that. With very different results!

 

(Rocksteady, of course, already went through that process over a decade ago, with Arkham Asylum to Arkham City. But on that occasion the development time was kept to a mere two years.)

[Marlowe]

Good game design never goes out of date. There was a period in the late 90s where 2D platformers would inexplicably be criticised as "dated". We've fortunately grown out of that to appreciate the concept of genre.

 

What does go out of date is replicating whatever the latest flavour of the month is/gamification nonsense that was never good design in the first place.

[Thor]

I'd love to find out how the little-known devs of Hogwarts Legacy managed to escape Warner Bros clear demand for GaaS, while Rocksteady, who you think would have the clout to push back, have produced one of the shittest looking GaaS games ever.

[Lying Cat]

The obvious answer is to release games earlier in their development cycle like Star Citizen.

[Thor]

4 minutes ago, Lying Cat said:

The obvious answer is to release games earlier in their development cycle like Star Citizen.

So basically:

 

The Star Citizen devs are gonna get found out eventually. 

[Lying Cat]

I'm sorry @Thor, but it's clear that you simply don't understand video game development, and thus I will dismiss everything you say and if you continue to type I will just dismiss it in ever larger, more bolded capitals.

[Ryan]

All of those companies who are $50M & two years in to their NFT shite are going to get absolutely rinsed when they finally drop them in to a market who will just be laughing at them.

[Broker]

I think one element is how willing and able you are to innovate. If you genuinely like the genre, and you have good ideas to bring new elements to it, you can release late and still make an impact. PUBG and Fortnite both released in 2017, with a lot of the BR trend chasers coming out throughout 2018. When Apex was announced, I remember a lot of responses that it was late in the day to be ripping off the latest big trend and a lot of suggestions that all the people who wanted to play that style of game were already playing one of the numerous ones that already existed. But a combination of great core shooting mechanics, an increased focus on movement and some smart changes to the core formula allowed it to succeed and many of its innovations were desperately patched into Fortnite to try to make sure it wasn’t seen as a clear replacement. 
 

Given the general stagnation of Destiny, and the lack of any major successful competitors amongst all the attempted rip offs, I don’t think it’s too late to release a GaaS which could succeed. I think the key things are that it would need to be planned as that from day 1, be a genre and design that we’re well suited to it, and be made by people who actually like those games and have some interesting ideas about how to improve them. The issue isn’t trying to join a genre after its initial peak of popularity, its management mandated shoehorning in of genre elements without the developers being passionate about what they’re doing. 

[footle]

You mean that the solution isn’t just to add another currency?

[Uncle Mike]

5 hours ago, Broker said:

Given the general stagnation of Destiny

 

This isn't really to argue the main thrust of your post, other than nitpick this one part. But "stagnant" seems like a strong word for a game where more people just cleared its newest raid in the opening Contest weekend than did so for all its previous raids added together, and a recent expansion that got widely panned by all its biggest fans but attracted record numbers of players.

[Broker]

3 hours ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

This isn't really to argue the main thrust of your post, other than nitpick this one part. But "stagnant" seems like a strong word for a game where more people just cleared its newest raid in the opening Contest weekend than did so for all its previous raids added together, and a recent expansion that got widely panned by all its biggest fans but attracted record numbers of players.

Fair. I guess I’m thinking less from a popularity point of view and more that as a player since HOW it feels to me like Destiny hasn’t meaningfully changed or evolved for years. I think there’s probably space for a reimagining of those systems that breathes new life into the formula with some new ideas. 

[thesnwmn]

I wonder if Destiny or any service game ends up with a sort of resignation from it's players. I think I felt the same about WoW in my later months. I didn't love everything but it was sort of a way of life.

 

And then I snapped and left. Now obviously WoW is still going and it saw off most major competition. But maybe there's a point where a competitor to Destiny can turn up and everyone just switches. They were done, they just needed that final push/pull.

 

A but like the Trust Thermocline around how companies slowly put up prices year on year and people grumble but carry on until it suddenly snaps and you can never win them back.

[Uncle Mike]

4 hours ago, Broker said:

Fair. I guess I’m thinking less from a popularity point of view and more that as a player since HOW it feels to me like Destiny hasn’t meaningfully changed or evolved for years. I think there’s probably space for a reimagining of those systems that breathes new life into the formula with some new ideas. 

 

It's definitely well overdue something else coming in and overtaking it. That would be good for Destiny as well! That no-one really seems to be able to is intriguing.

[dreamylittledream]

9 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

It's definitely well overdue something else coming in and overtaking it. That would be good for Destiny as well! That no-one really seems to be able to is intriguing.

What people repeatedly miss about Destiny is just how good the basic mechanics are, which is perhaps hardly surprising given it’s from the people who invented the same five minutes of fun being repeated.

 

Regardless of the hook of the Skinner box, Destiny is always fun to play and it’s that which it’s many rivals have failed to recapture.

[Uncle Mike]

Agreed! This, I guess, comes back to the topic at hand. They made a good game, where the game was good moment to moment, and also the service part mostly made sense over time. I think, for all the moans and grumbles and worse that Destiny fans produce, most Destiny people would agree that they've done a good job over the 8 or 9 years (Grosse Pointe Blank gif) they've been going for.

 

But that's because they knew what they were making! You can't trend chase, unless you know that you're going to make an objectively good game. I suspect.

 

The chasers and the also-rans and the happy eater/little chef division games are always self-evident at moment of reveal. There's no surprise. Just the poor-quality leadership that wills these things into fruition.

[mushashi]

On 14/03/2023 at 17:18, Eighthours said:

For me, decent single player games will never go out of fashion, so make one of those (particularly if you're renowned for them, like Rocksteady) and don't be ultra-greedy chasing a trend that may well have vanished by the time you can finish your game! It's curious to me how Sony, which understands how single player games can sell extremely well maybe more than any other publisher, is planning to publish a slew of live service games over the next few years. True, it stands a chance of making one of them properly stick more than most publishers, and maybe that's enough to make up for the rest if they fail, but it's still a weird move. And what will be the next trend? Maybe try to create it yourself, rather than copying a current one while hoping that the train will still be in the station when you arrive!

 

Because the stats show where the money increasingly is, and it certainly isn't towards traditional single player games. The proportion of total revenue being gobbled up by Service Games isn't going down and if you're planning to piss $100+ Million up the wall, might aswell shoot for the Moon.

[JPL]

Apologies for keeping this off topic, but I really wish Bungie would move on from Destiny now. They lost me years ago and I’d much rather them go back to just making a solid shooter, go open world even, just leave the GaaS bullshit behind. It feels like they’re totally wasted.