Ubisoft: Triple-A Costs Will "Stifle" Innovation

[shirkbot]

Developing for high end hardware is easier than for low end. Optimization is VERY expensive. And usually there are ways to make use of newer technology in order to cheapen and easen your way in development. Also it wont limit the artists and level designers as much as low end harware, which can again make costs rise up. The lowering of costs from knowing the consoles hardware is a reality, but the other things are usually more important for the costs ... though often overlooked.

Would it then be possible to create some kind of baseline optimization tool? Something that does the most basic optimizations for a game that, freeing up time/money to work on the finer points and just generally reducing costs? I'm going to openly admit that I'm not a programmer, so I don't even know if something like that would be possible.

OT: Well, I'm glad someone inside the industry is saying it. I could have done without the subtle title mentions though.

 

[Baldr]

Celebrities get paid the same amount of money that regular voice actors do. In fact is most video games studios do not use celebrities, they use either in-house staff or regular voice actors. Marketing is usually paid by the publisher, but it works. A great marketing campaign pays for itself. Marketing is vital.

I know this is unpopular, but bottom line if consumers want more innovation, they need to pay their fair share for games. Games need to cost more.

 

[Callate]

What Ms. Raymond says is true, but the way she says it makes me uneasy. "Find more ways to make money" sounds a lot like many of the tactics that are frustrating gamers right now- DLC, online passes, DRM, stifling the used market, in-game advertising, large pre-order bonuses, and so on. And some might read "make ten times the amount of content that we were making before with the same amount of effort" as, well, Copy and Paste.

It's clearly true that there are advances that could be made in streamlining the tools used in game creation, making them less arcane and more functional to decrease both the time required to create assets with them and the time necessary to train people to use them and re-train people to use new versions. Hopefully the future will bring this; there's some suggestion that systems like Unreal and Unity are indeed moving in this direction, and the "independent" scene is already beginning to benefit.

But some things are always going to require a certain amount of time and effort, and some of those things simply can't get easier in the new generation. Designing HD textures and models that warrant next-generation hardware can't be forced, plot trees need to be designed and pruned, soundtracks need to be composed and orchestrated, controller latency code has to be optimized.

Costs may improve if they're willing to put in the work, but I sometimes wonder if the real change needs to be made in expectations.

 

[JPArbiter]

here is an idea. I know this sounds crazy... SLASH BUDGETS. announce to the world you are going to be making games at (and I am pulling a random year out of my ass here) 2007 budgets and crews, with a devotion to high quality while at those low budgets.

 

[shirkbot]

Depends on the engine and the developers. UE 3 supposedly does some of that. The engine of 4A games (makers of Metro Last Light) suposedly ported the game onto both consoles in less than a month. They also claim their engine easily just worked on the PS3. That is very impressive. I too as well hope things will get better in the future.
Still, marketing, voice actors Id say contribute just as much to a game's cost.

Oh no, you're absolutely right, especially on the marketing point which can cost as much or more than the actual game's production. This was just what I saw as the most easily achieved because all anyone has to do is Make it and I'm sure developers would gladly adopt it.

 

[geizr]

My suggestion would be for game developers and game publishers to stop pinning the entirety of their business model on triple-A game development and marketing. Try diversifying the portfolio. Make an investment of smaller, tighter games that don't require so much development resources but can sell extremely well and garner a reasonable profit margin.

Triple-A gaming long ago hit the point where innovation pretty much died on the altar of risk-aversion. Now, it's moving ever closer to complete unprofitability as games like Resident Evil 5 (I think it was) can sell 5+ million copies and still be labeled a failure. Hell, back in the day, a game selling 1 million copies was a phenomenal success and label as the greatest, most popular game ever. Now, 5+ million, and it's a complete failure. There's a serious disconnect going on somewhere.

 

[LordLundar]

"Triple A costs stifle in industry so we'll only chase after Triple A titles and run them into the ground!"

Or did everyone forget that Ubisoft is only going to back AAA titles that they can franchise?

Ubisoft, where the publishing arm requires all employees to get a lobotomy.

 

[RJ 17]

Holy carp, Ubisoft! You've gone from my "Worst Game Producers Evar" to "One of the Betters" in, like, four months.

Keep in mind that this is just one person at the company saying this, and she's just one of the studio heads, not one of the business executives. For all the higher ups probably care, her saying this might as well be a fart in the breeze.

We're still talking about the company that firmly stated they have no interest in making games that can't be drawn out into long-running franchises, and that they intend to crap out sequels for said long-running franchises on a yearly basis.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Costs will fall with the ease of computing these next gen consoles. In fact, simplicity will most likely push developers away from this generation by end of 2014.

And so we'll go from developers launching a title over 6 platforms, to just 2. Wii U is left behind, and the PC will get a slightly more upgraded version, but nothing very intense.

But by 2015, I'm convinced that even the most hardcore PC enthusiasts will own a PS4 or Xbox One.​

 

[DTWolfwood]

Use last years tech for new gameplay... it's ok if your game isn't the greatest looking game ever if its gameplay is sublime.

Stop wasting money on trying to squeeze more polygons out of dated tech!

Also, have some restraint when it comes to spending. There is no reason for a game to cost so damn much to develop when there isn't anything new on offer.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ubisoft Toronto's Jade Raymond believes triple-A development costs will limit videogames if new approaches to limit costs aren't explored.

She estimates this exploration will cost several billion dollars and require multiple DLC packs to accomplish.

 

[Kristian Fischer]

WILL stifle innovation? Try HAVE stifleD innovation.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Costs will fall with the ease of computing these next gen consoles. In fact, simplicity will most likely push developers away from this generation by end of 2014.

And so we'll go from developers launching a title over 6 platforms, to just 2. Wii U is left behind, and the PC will get a slightly more upgraded version, but nothing very intense.

But by 2015, I'm convinced that even the most hardcore PC enthusiasts will own a PS4 or Xbox One.

I hope you've prepared your inbox for a statement like that. God forbid people actually acknowledge that different platforms are just different and there's benefits to be had from each. Not there aren't plenty of pc gamers with minds that can be changed

I agree with you, dev costs should drop with the coming of the next consoles especially given how easy porting will be. We also have several next gen engines like Unreal 4 claiming to cut development time and with articles like these, efficiently spending money seems to be finally becoming a priority with AAA publishers

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

You know what else stifles innovation? Announcing that you're not going to make any new IPs that don't have the potential to be turned into a yearly series.

Ubisoft. One step forward, five steps backward into a field of landmines.

 

[Black Reaper]

Just where do AAA games spend that much money?, surely it can't be that hard to make a good game with much less money than that

 

[Adon Cabre]

Snip

I hope you've prepared your inbox for a statement like that. God forbid people actually acknowledge that different platforms are just different and there's benefits to be had from each. Not there aren't plenty of pc gamers with minds that can be changed

I agree with you, dev costs should drop with the coming of the next consoles especially given how easy porting will be. We also have several next gen engines like Unreal 4 claiming to cut development time and with articles like these, efficiently spending money seems to be finally becoming a priority with AAA publishers

Yeah, I think the future is still software, and that there will be an explosion of titles in 2015-2016 -- possibly reminiscent of the Playstation 2. I can even see Microsoft and SONY's exclusive studios doubling because of slashed costs.

But for some reason, I don't think Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag or Watch Dogs will do well. Not only were many were turned off by ACIII, but both could be a mess of bugs and glitches for being ported to 6 consoles.