- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,593
- 3,109
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I just don't understand trying to "trim the fat" by trimming a team that's making profitable games with a small budget. Like I understand if Hi-Fi Rush had flopped, or if it had a huge budget and only generated a minor return (then you could argue that budget could have been used by another game generating a much larger profit), but given that it's a AA release with a small budget and it made a decent profit and got some acclaim for Microsoft it seems incredibly short sighted to ax the studio.So I think what we are seeing over the past year or so is a big industry-wide shake up. It's no news to anybody here that development teams have gotten too big, development costs have gotten out of control and in order to maintain all this shit you need games damn near on the level of GTA 5 in order to keep pushing forward. A lot of the big companies are taking a step back and going, "Okay what we are doing isn't working, we need to narrow the workforce down and point it n more specific directions. Key games, focused projects, etc."
What I think this means is that they are going to make few games overall but each game is going to be more of a pillar AAA release. Your Far Cries, your Final Fantasies, whatever it is.
I hope this means that these studios stop trying to force live services into everything, because how many of this pieces of shit can lose them millions before they pivot to some other fad really?
Either way these teams are too big to sustain anything and that means jobs are going to get the axe, it sucks but the bloat has to get let out somewhere. It's just a matter of whether this direction shift works out for the AAA industry or what.
Rather than pushing for fewer games with even larger budgets where they're betting it all on a big hit every time (which is frankly unsustainable), companies should be diversifying their portfolios and investing in some smaller games that make them a profit.