Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 dev Tim Willits explains why the game was able to achieve massive success when so many big budget games have failed lately.
Pretty much what I’ve been saying for almost a decade, mostly in response to “game development is expensive, that’s why AAA games need *insert extra revenue streams*”. My response has always been that games are bloated with feature creep and if there was an actual issue with development costs the first thing you can cut are features that don’t really add to the game. Not only do you cut development costs but you arguably make a better product.
Nice to get some validation because it’s been a rather controversial opinion. People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it’s not an open world with XP, skills and crafting. Or a competitive hero based online shooter with XP, unlockables, season pass and 5 different game modes. I guess now people don’t buy those even if they are all those things
Budgets follow revenue. Never the other way around.
Games got fat because they made more money. Publishers are the ones pushing for more and bigger and better, often to the point their expectations are flatly impossible, and then the studio gets demolished.
IMO that’s a leadership failure. Leading the company down the route where your games are “make or break” is a failure of leadership. I know there’s a power dynamic where the publisher has all the money and might not give it if you don’t do what they want, but that comes with the territory and if you can’t get the funding without being a yes-man then that’s also a failure of leadership.
Blaming subsidiaries that get wrung-out for their own wringing-out is looking straight at the problem and saying “it doesn’t look like anything to me.”
Pretty much what I’ve been saying for almost a decade, mostly in response to “game development is expensive, that’s why AAA games need *insert extra revenue streams*”. My response has always been that games are bloated with feature creep and if there was an actual issue with development costs the first thing you can cut are features that don’t really add to the game. Not only do you cut development costs but you arguably make a better product.
Nice to get some validation because it’s been a rather controversial opinion. People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it’s not an open world with XP, skills and crafting. Or a competitive hero based online shooter with XP, unlockables, season pass and 5 different game modes. I guess now people don’t buy those even if they are all those things
More directly:
Budgets follow revenue. Never the other way around.
Games got fat because they made more money. Publishers are the ones pushing for more and bigger and better, often to the point their expectations are flatly impossible, and then the studio gets demolished.
IMO that’s a leadership failure. Leading the company down the route where your games are “make or break” is a failure of leadership. I know there’s a power dynamic where the publisher has all the money and might not give it if you don’t do what they want, but that comes with the territory and if you can’t get the funding without being a yes-man then that’s also a failure of leadership.
Blaming subsidiaries that get wrung-out for their own wringing-out is looking straight at the problem and saying “it doesn’t look like anything to me.”