Triple A Games will (Probably) Destroy the Industry | Salari

This video is brought to you by the wonderful people who support the channel on Patreon. If you'd like to help out, you can get ad-free early access to new videos, at Patreon.com/Salari 💜 The release of a triple-A game is almost always a big deal to the point where it's practically a worldwide event. The hype train usually begins a couple of years in advance, often through a teaser trailer that gives us a glimpse at what to expect and on some occasions what could basically be considered a high

resolution gif with a title drop followed by years of silence. In the run up to the big day, we get to see some longer trailers, developer diaries, gameplay footage and if we're lucky, maybe even a demo. We're also encouraged to preorder games to secure our copy as soon as possible, even if it's a digital version with no stock limits. But in exchange you can get some bonus stuff like exclusive items or maybe a collectible if you purchase the physical edition. Then the special editions like Delu

xe or Ultimate editions, where if you pay more, you get more stuff. Whether it's worth it is subjective, but generally I'd say no. But nonetheless, it's tempting for many players When the big day comes and the anticipation has reached its peak, millions of players try their best to start playing as early as possible, staying up past midnight to be there when the digital version unlocks or refreshing the tracking updates of the physical delivery. You load up the game - after a modest day-one patc

h downloads, then you and other players around the world get to be part of a major event, to be involved in a grand conversation. Share your experiences, ask for and offer tips, make memes, fan art, videos, streams and more. It's almost like a long awaited celebration, but even the biggest of celebrations can turn sour if the smallest of things go wrong. It's sadly become all too common that major game releases have been released in less than favorable conditions. Issues like unstable performanc

e, bugs of all shapes and sizes. Server issues for online games - or, worst of all, a game that's not as good as you thought it would be. It can be demoralizing, to say the least. If you spent months or possibly years following an upcoming game in the hopes that it'll be as amazing as the developers say it is and bought into the hype generated by other players, if the game falls even slightly short of expectations, the feeling of disappointment can be strong, and some players regrettably become

unreasonably angry to the point where they start harassing developers or anyone else involved in the making of the game, for that matter. A disappointing game isn't necessarily a bad game. It's just not the game that people expected it to be. And the expectations people have for many triple-A titles can be immeasurable. Something which I'm sure puts an intense amount of pressure on the people who make these games. However, triple-A games are made under a mandate to appeal not only to the largest

audience possible, but to publishers, investors, shareholders, and to be released by a deadline - that all important release date chosen to ensure their game is available to purchase at the optimal time of year. Usually in the run up to the holidays or around springtime. And that release date is often non-negotiable. Even if the developers feel that the game isn't ready yet. The release of a game, whether it's disappointing or even good, can also be hampered by the inclusion of aggressive monet

ization - something which I spoke about at length in my previous video - where players are regularly reminded in the game's menus that if they want their character to look nicer or gain some gameplay benefits, if they pay more than the initial cost of entry, they can enhance their experience. The common defense for this from publishers, developers and even some consumers, is that games are expensive to produce, so they need to make money where they can. There is, however, some truth to this game

production has some eye-wateringly high costs, but there's a reason behind that, that isn't always due to the demand of players, but an industry that's perpetuated the belief that they're a necessity. But more on that later. It's fairly well known at this point that the video game industry brings in a ludicrous amount of money from consumers. It's by far the highest grossing entertainment market in the world, earning more than the movie and music industry combined, something which has been an o

ngoing trend for years now. The industry for video games has been growing steadily pretty much since Nintendo entered the market in the 1980s and shows no sign of stopping. The average age of a person who plays games regularly is around 35 years old, a demographic which has a somewhat decent amount of disposable income to spend on luxury products and even though there was a significant amount of stigma towards gaming as a hobby in the nineties and 2000s, their popularity has never really waned.

We're now at a point in time where around 40% of the world's population plays video games and given that gaming as a hobby has essentially be normalized among children and teenagers, that number is guaranteed to grow to the point where the majority of the world will be playing. A growing market brings with it the opportunity to increase profits exponentially through whatever means possible, even if that means creating and releasing a product that fails to deliver on all fronts. With triple-A gam

es, if there's one factor that they all share is that they're largely designed to appeal to the widest market possible. Almost every launch budget release over the past two generations of consoles can be considered an action game in which the player controls a character that engages in combat against enemies. The form of combat can vary, but ultimately, these games are people playing a protagonist that beats the baddies. Of course, this can depend on the context of a game story. I don't want to

paint with broad strokes and say that every game is a story of good versus evil, since there are numerous explorations of gray zones within games. But as objectives go in triple-A games, it's generally a case of you versus them. The general progression in these games is that you face stronger enemies the further you get face off against bosses, add weapons or skills to your arsenal and travel through new parts of the game's world. There are various ways in how these goals are achieved, but big b

udget games, especially the more successful ones, tend to follow this template. And I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an entertaining formula, something I've enjoyed numerous times over. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. There is an argument to be made, though, that this template has become a problem. The familiarity is comforting when you know what to expect from something, you can still gain enjoyment from it. But it can put people in a position where they become mo

re reluctant to see what else might be available to them. For example, let's say there’s a person that when they want to eat dinner, they go to McDonald's every time. Ignoring the potential nutritional issues with a diet that's almost exclusively fast food, the reason someone might make this choice is because they know what to expect from McDonald's. They know and like the taste of a Big Mac. The fries, the supposedly unique taste of their Coca-Cola, and if they fancy something a bit different,

they can try other things off the menu, but still have some sense of familiarity, - comfort. It's the same reason why most of us have our comfort foods. I personally enjoy a good donut when I'm in need of a pick me up like these apple cider donuts that I made recently. One person's McDonald's may be another's mac and cheese or grilled cheese sandwich. Familiarity is nice, but it's also restrictive. The person who enjoys McDonald's everyday may be comforted, but they're also missing out on the wo

rld of other amazing dishes and potentially their new favorite food. Mass appeal products are kind of like McDonald's in that you have some idea of what you're getting into when you buy it. I don't mean to say that triple-A games are as underwhelming as McDonald's, but they have become safe on a mechanical level. Familiarity is the enemy of experimentation, and even though big budget titles have given us some great innovations, both in gameplay and narratives, it's hard to say whether they help

the medium grow in any substantial way. Not too long ago, games were much cheaper to produce and quicker to make. They were made by smaller teams, and although they were created with the intent of earning a profit, there was less pressure to remain within the confines that were defined by the market's more successful products. As such, there was more room for experimentation. Creators were able to take advantage of the opportunity to create games which consumers may not know that they would like

and would go on to influence and innovate the games that came after it, possibly even creating entirely new genres. In other words, developers had the privilege of being able to take a gamble and lose, whereas in today's market, failure to meet expectations is often met with major repercussions, including job losses, studio shutdowns, or even an aversion to experimenting again. Leading higher ups to demand that the future products they create adhere to the demands of the mass market. Many of th

ese games were made to be loved for what they were and not because they're similar to other popular products on the market. Titles like Super Mario Brothers, Pokemon, Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear, Solid, Doom, Resident Evil, Half-Life, Ocarina of Time, Shadow of The Colossus, Halo, Dark Souls and more have all had their DNA included and altered in some kind of ways in countless games that followed it, and they all have a place among the greats for that very reason. Sure, some of them were expensi

ve to produce, at least relative to the time and the size of the industry during that period. But they were still a gamble. Conceptually, they were unique or different enough to be considered a risk. For many - notably in the West - Final Fantasy 7 was a completely foreign concept, given that it was a turn-based combat game where you waited, turns to attack your enemies, but it sold extremely well, creating a massive legacy which still continues to this day. Dark Souls came out at a time in whic

h games had a growing tendency to hold the player's hand, tell them where to go, what to do, and at the same time offer them a power fantasy where they felt like an unstoppable force. Dark Souls, on the other hand, put you in an overbearingly hostile world, gave you limited means of survival, no direction, and had you learn by dying repeatedly. But despite all this, it was a runaway success to the point where it and its predecessor, Demon's Souls, created the Soulsbourne genre, which spawned num

erous imitators, including Nioh, Lords of the Fallen, Remnant, Lies of P and More. its success eventually resulted in the creation of FromSoftware’s Elden Ring, the second bestselling game of last year, which is quite shocking given that the modern market is largely dominated by games which offer more accessibility in regards to difficulty, and Elden Ring is not an easy game for most people. Regardless of what its diehard fans may say, The point being, creating games that aren't designed from th

e ground up to appeal to the masses can lead to something special. I'm not the first to say this, but in general, the public doesn't really know what it wants. It's only through giving them something different that we can learn about their tastes and we can learn about our own tastes. as much as you like McDonald's, it's good to try another dish every now and then, even if that means risking a bad meal. However, there's a problem with this, and it goes back to what I said earlier. Making and mar

keting games has become expensive, particularly in the Triple A space. With something like the movie industry, production budgets and earnings are shared with the public, In most cases, though, the cost of developing a Triple A game is kept as a secret between the publisher and shareholders, making it truly difficult to grasp the average cost. And that's without even factoring in the marketing costs, which in many cases can be nearly identical to production costs. But once again, these are mostl

y a mystery. Just in the past few years, with inflation taken into account, three of the top five most expensive games ever have been produced, including Cyberpunk 2077 The Last of Us Part 2 and Horizon Forbidden West. The latter two cost over $200 million to produce and Cyberpunk - according to the developers, CDProjekt Red cost $483 million, adjusted for inflation. Needless to say, but that's a lot of money, enough to rival some of Hollywood's biggest film productions. And with bigger costs co

me bigger risks and a bigger need to mitigate that risk by creating products with mass market appeal that play it safe by catering to gamers’ desire for familiarity. One common criticism with PlayStation exclusive titles like Horizon Forbidden West and The Last of Us series is that there's too many similarities between them, and they follow a particular formula, specifically high production, story heavy, character driven action games where you play from a third person perspective in an open or s

emi-open world setting. This is sort of been the case since Sony started finding momentum during the PS3’s lifespan, and it was arguably kicked off by the success of Uncharted 2 by developer Naughty Dog, who have since become the pedigree for the PlayStation exclusive scene. These exclusives also happen to be visually stunning to the point where you can practically see the budget in every character model and environment. Now to be clear, I'm not saying that these games are bad. Far from it. Some

of these are genuine all time greats and personal favorites of mine, largely because I'm a sucker for a good story. And many of these games do a damn good job at telling one. I do have to ask though; what are these games doing on a mechanical level that makes them unique? How much are they experimenting or trying something new? As much as I love some of these games, I do have to admit that they are a bit formulaic. There's also the fact that many of the big releases that we see these days are s

equels from long established franchises, which is what you get when companies become more risk averse and choose to leverage a preexisting audience rather than funding a new, untested intellectual property and hoping it finds success. The question we have to ask, though, is do triple-A games HAVE to be so expensive and what could be gained from making them cheaper? To the first question, the answer is kind of a maybe. One of the problems with current big budget game development is that many deem

it to be an unsustainable model. Ex CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment America, Shawn Layden, who oversaw the releases of numerous triple-A titles, said he believes that the industry needs to reconsider the escalating costs of triple-A game development and the kind of games that are produced. In regards to this, Shawn said the following. and added. “I think the industry as a whole needs to sit back and go, ”All right, what are we building? What is the audience's expectation? What is the best wa

y to get our story across and say what we need to say?’” As many of you know, the standard box price of a triple-A game is now $70, which is a lot of money for most people. I find myself waiting for sales more and more often these days because I can't really justify the purchase of so many big game releases in a single year. But relative to the cost of inflation, the cost of a video game hasn't really increased. Just ten years ago, 60 USD was worth almost $80 at the current rate. But of course t

his can vary depending on where you live in the world. Like in a recent case where Steam's lazy, regional pricing exploded, the cost of games in countries such as Argentina and Turkey. The problem is that many gamers see high fidelity, high budget games as the norm now, and some will go as far as avoiding or even ridiculing games that don't live up to the standard set by its predecessors. Doing petty things like comparing screenshots between them and older games to demonstrate how the graphics a

ren't good enough. It's a obnoxious mentality that doesn't help anyone, especially the developers who put so much of their time and effort into creating these worlds. But gamer entitlement - what more can you say really? The games industry is sort of in the same place as the movie industry right now in spending massive amounts of money on a small handful of big projects is safer than spending less money on more projects. Something which sounds kind of absurd when you say it out loud, But when yo

u've cultivated an audience to invest in your brand, it makes sense from a business point of view. You can put all your eggs in one basket if you've convinced everyone that your eggs are the best 🥚 But as you can surmise, this means that smaller and more unique projects end up taking a backseat, leaving the indie games scene to pick up the slack. In that respect. I guess we can kind of thank the triple-A market. The indie scene grew exponentially as triple-A games became the norm. Because of th

at, we've had some remarkable games that major publishers probably wouldn't have touched otherwise. It also helps that digital distribution made it far easier for game creators to put their work in front of people. I'm not sure that games like Hades, Celeste, Papers Please Stardew Valley, Lisa or Disco Elysium would have even made it had the conditions not been right, let alone be successful games. Aside from the intense amount of labor that goes into making triple-A games with high fidelity 4K

resolution graphics, one big reason why they take so much time and money to produce is because in general they're very long games. If you search for almost any modern triple-A title on Howlongtobeat.com, you'll find that pretty much every single one of them takes about 20 hours or more just to complete the main questline and more if you want to clear the side content. Now, it's understandable why this is a selling point to a lot of people. If you're spending $70 on a game that you want to get yo

ur mileage out of, for that much, it be disappointing to be done with it after only 5 or 8 hours It would be like paying for a full priced movie ticket and it turns out the movie is only 90 minutes long, instead of your typical two and a half hour plus runtime like every damn movie seems to be now. Please, just make movies shorter. I've got stuff to do. 90 minutes is fine 🤷 There's nothing wrong with long games. For some, like, RPGs, it’s somewhat of a necessity. But there are also games where

the long runtime works against it. Either way, though, the normalization of the 20 plus hour runtime has resulted in extremely lengthy production cycles and, of course, rapidly inflating budgets. The gap between triple-A releases from major studios can be as long as five years or more, which include sequels with preexisting assets that can be ported or built upon from previous games in the series, Or in the case of the finally announced Grand Theft Auto 6, it can a 12 year window. You can probab

ly thank the cash cow that is GTA online for that. Less frequent releases means less chances to earn money for the studios, greater gambits, bigger budgets and fewer opportunities for developers to experiment with something different since they're stuck in lengthy cycles of creating huge hits that adhere to the winning formula established by the industry. I do not want to undermine the work of developers. As I said, I truly believe that many triple-A game releases are incredible, But I'm left wo

ndering how satisfied THEY are by being a part of this. If you are someone who works in the triple-A industry, then please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments because I am genuinely interested. As we know at this point, the life of a game developer isn't an easy one, thanks to the poor treatment of game studios. But I do think it is telling how even big industry names have left studios to work on independent projects and escape bland corporate mechanisms. As I was working on this vi

deo, one particular game kept popping into my head. 2019’s Death Stranding by Kojima Studios, helmed by the legendary game developer Hideo Kojima. Kojima created the Metal Gear Solid series, considered by many, including myself, to be one of the best video game franchises of all time. After a mysterious dispute between Kojima and his long time employer, Konami, he left them and created his own studio. It also didn't help that Konami wanted to pivot into the mobile market and pachinko machines le

ading to the cancellation of Silent Hills, which probably would have ended up being the best horror game of all time. But [clicks tongue] now it's gone 😞 due to his legacy as a prolific game creator, Kojima created a new studio and Sony funded the production of Death Stranding, but allowed him to do so with practically no oversight or interference. They simply trusted that he would make a good game because, well... he’s Hideo Kojima. Long story short, we ended up with Death Stranding, a game st

arring numerous Hollywood actors like Norman Reedus, Mads Mikkelsen, who my wife has a worrying fascination with Léa Seydoux and two of Kojima's favorite directors, Nicolas Winding Refn and Guillermo del Toro. There was a very long run up to the game with a handful of surreal trailers, leaving fans to speculate for a few years on what the game was about and how it would play. Eventually, we found out that Death Stranding was a long cinematic game in which you, as Norman Reedus’s character Sam B

ridges, played as a guy who... delivered packages. People were a little split on the idea, but nevertheless it was a Kojima game. So it must be good right? Well, it's not that straightforward. For many, a game where the majority of the time is spent walking across fields and mountains while hauling a bunch of packages on your back and appendages between lengthy cut scenes wasn't an appealing selling point. There was some action elements in the game, but they were limited as the story makes it ve

ry clear that killing another person can quite literally have catastrophic results. And considering that many triple-A titles are sold on the back of the satisfaction of destroying your enemies, it was a bitter pill to swallow. Depending on who you ask, Death Stranding was either a great game or a boring game. Personally, I really liked it. There were a few embarrassing moments like Sam and “Princess Beach” having a slow motion run on the shoreline. More than anything, though, I and many others

appreciated that the studio was given the opportunity and budget to create something that wasn't designed to cater to a bullet point list of what gamers currently like. Kojima has more clout than probably any other game developer out there. He's so revered that his name is put next to the game title on the box. Not everyone can be Kojima, so they can't easily ask a publisher to write a blank check so they can make an experimental title like Death Stranding. That's just the industry for you. The

$70 price tag may be justifiable on the games that we currently get because of how they're produced, but we could do things differently. Even though there is a segment of consumers who like to whine about the visual quality of video games, especially indie ones, they're a vocal minority, And they’re the ones that go out of their way to make game developers and artists feel bad about their work. So, screw them. Games also don't have to be a 20-plus hour experience. A short game is perfectly fine

if done well. And if we’re being honest, many people just don't have the time to complete long games. Remember that the average age of the person who plays video games is 35 years old, the same demographic that works nine hour shifts and probably has to look after a kid or two between those? A short while back. This tweet right here got some widespread attention after the user said, “I want shorter games with worse graphics, made by people who are paid more to work less. And I'm not kidding.” An

d you know what? They're right. The games industry is booming, right now, but like any entertainment industry it's not immune to being toppled or being reset. From the 1930s to the late 1950s, the Hollywood film industry was thriving under the stewardship of five major studios. But as movie budgets skyrocketed and they couldn't convince enough people to buy tickets, it all came tumbling down. The video game industry may have produced some of the most profitable entertainment products of all time

, but even the largest of monuments can be toppled. All it can take is a handful of failed games and the landscape of gaming as we know it could transform dramatically, and as that happens, people will lose their jobs. Studios will shut down in an effort to protect the bottom line. Because of that situation, though, Hollywood started taking risks again by hiring young filmmakers with fresh ideas. And it turned out the people loved them. Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas and others

revitalized cinema and went on to create what many considered to be some of the greatest films all time. Great things can come from change, even if that means taking risks and possibly losing along the way. The games industry, as it stands, can afford to take a few risks, and they don't have to spend $200 million each time that they want to do so. Shorter games with lower production budgets can be great and they can be sold cheaper, meaning that people don't have to worry about regretting burnin

g a $70 hole in their wallet. I'm not an expert on business by any means, but hedging your bets on $200 million products, no matter how safe it might seem, doesn't guarantee success. Like how right now people are becoming tired of the superhero genre leading some movies, barely breaking even when you take into account marketing budgets. A smaller budget game not doing well isn't the end of the world though, when you have the wiggle room to fail and if you end up with the next big hit, then the r

eturns can be huge. Just look at the success of this year's Baldur’s Gate 3, a title which Microsoft believed that barely anyone would care about Glowing reviews, and word of mouth helped the game explode in popularity, despite it being a cRPG, which is a very old fashioned genre. But now it's scooping up a bunch of Game of the Year awards. And although I wrote this before most of those awards were handed out, I included that in this because I'm confident in it happening. [Whispered] Although pe

rsonally, if I'm honest, I think Tears of the Kingdom was Game of the Year... so good. Major publishers wouldn't dream of releasing a game in such a niche genre in this day and age because they believe that people wouldn't like it due to it not being as accessible as your typical Triple A title. But it turned out that not only did people want to play it, but they were starving for something different. So if you start seeing more games like Baldur's Gate being released by companies such as EA or

Ubisoft in the near future, you have Larian Studios to thank for that. Or blame... more than likely blame 😔 Like anything else in life, it's good to occasionally step out of your comfort zone. So if you're bored of the landscape of gaming as it is, try more indie games. Play something that you didn't think that you would like but others love. You never know if something is for you unless you try it. Much like you, I'd rather not see developers, artists, programmers and everyone else who makes g

ames lose their jobs just so the industry can crumble and be rebuilt as something else. But I do know that no matter who you are, familiarity can breed contempt and that game companies should treat change as an inevitability instead of something that they need to throw money at to avoid. Thank you very much for watching. If you enjoyed the video, then please don't forget to click the like button, and if you don't mind, a subscribe would be really nice too. Just don't forget to click the notifica

tion bell because YouTube's bad at... you know, being YouTube. I'd like to thank the patrons that you see on screen for supporting me creating these videos, and I'd like to offer a special thanks to the following. Thank you all very much. Your support seriously does help me keep going. If you'd also like to support the channel and get ad-free early access to new videos, then visit Patreon.com/Salari. Any amount goes a very, very long way. You can also check me out at Twitch.tv/JSalari But someti

me after the new year I'll be switching to streaming on YouTube since... well, you're all here anyway, so look out for that. Thank you once again. Happy holidays. Happy New Year. And he is to a hopefully peaceful 2024. Take care 💜