AAA video games struggle to keep up with the skyrocketing costs of realistic graphics

" I guess the only way to make games "cool" again is to make lighting better. "

I hope to see realistic graphics, realistic people that move breathe and talk like real humans, and physics.
But I know well that current is not as strong to do it, not soon. Can you imagine a GTA game where everything looks almost like in a real life. That would be cool. We will probably find several major improvements, perhaps not silicon based, to achieve that.

What`s wrong with photorealism? We all love it. It`s what got games from three pixels hitting another to building entire worlds. I suppose the new gen kids are so tired of it cause they had it all along and so many will prefer fun over graphics. But here`s the thing, they`re not mutually exclusive. In fact, fun is a prerequisite. A game can draw you in with photorealism, but it still needs to be fun. The problem these companies don`t mention is that they make boring games, push social agendas, nobody buys them and then they complain they spent so much money on graphics. Well, I hate to break it to you, a shiny turd is still a turd. And then we`re talking about personal preference. I don`t get Minecraft, I`m bored in under 2 minutes, but so many people love it. Should game companies quit the race for photorealism because chunky PS1 graphics games with more social engagement could also sell well? Great, then make only one kind of game for a specific demographic and see how long it lasts before no one is buying anything from you.

BS.. the only thing skyrocketing is the salary of CEOs and executives

Stop wasting millions on injecting woke ideology. And let's not forget development costs went up 5x but profits went up by a factor of 10 or more. So cry me a river. Games should look and play better and should still be $50 brand new. Anything more is a ripoff.

I call bull. People are only playing social games, because first person single player games with excellent game play for all levels of players (easy to difficult) is rare.

Half-Life, BioShock to name a few. Games I STILL find myself replaying.

In the past :
-code your game engine
-integration of the game in the engine is complex
-all assets need to be created in house
-workers are in the US or EU, so they're expensive

Nowadays :
-there are many engines available
-engines are user friendly and optimized out of the box
-assets can be bought, shared, modified easily thanks to huge online libraries
-workers are chinese or indian....

Yet they don't make money ?!! Let me guess, somebody at the top is sucking up the money like a leech.

acrossthestars said:

Would anyone even bother playing games anymore, if Raytracing/Pathtracing eventually becomes mandatory for every AAA game going forward, but it requires you to have a $10K graphics card, the size of a small car because, "well, you want the best, right?"

Click to expand...

..."it requires you to have a $10K graphics card, the size of a small car because, "well, you want the best, right?"" Yeah, but can it play Crysis? Sorry, couldn't help it.

There are several articles out there right now referencing these same narrow minded interviews. There are vital perspectives missing from these articles. They primarily argue that a big portion of an industry wide financial problem is a lack of consumer interest (primarily kids) in high fidelity graphics, barely referencing the interests of adults. We’re in the era of single player cinematic gaming I dreamt of as a kid. As a child, maybe I was in the minority. It’s clear though, that as gamers get older and their tastes mature, they’re likely to gravitate towards more sophisticated experiences, which often equates to deep systems, world building, and graphical fidelity. Between the success of mid-gen refreshes and PC builders literally crafting machines to achieve higher fidelity/performance, it’s obvious consumers want high end experiences. If that’s not your thing, there’s nothing wrong with picking up Super Mario Bros. It’s not either or. Just look at TGA nominations and winners this year.

The problem isn’t the consumer or the consumer’s lack of interest. The problem seems most often to be execs placing unrealistic expectations on devs, who then suffer when they can’t meet them… and then consumers are scapegoated for not meeting sales quotas.

There’s some truth to the article (for example, banking on GAAS is a recipe for failure) but it sure is lacking perspective.

If Boomers didn't like or want computers or video games, you wouldn't be here tossing hate about something you obviously know nothing about.

DrSuess said:

A way to cut cost is focus more on the creative side and create a game with a freaking great storyline with rich characters, and complex missions with multiple options to complete them. If the game is compelling enough I would play a text base game ala "Zork" or "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy".

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, because the people who buy pawlord 50+ million, play Fortnight or any other multiplayer crap do it for the great story and everything else you described. Speaking of story oriented games, even Veilguard by your logic should be popular by virtue of being a such game (even if you don't like the story), unlike games that are bought by dozens of millions where there isn't even a hint of a plot.

Heck, every gaming expo from e3 to game awards is just full of announcements of these games that can be characterized as those that focus not on great graphics but on creativity and story. Who cares about these games? Everyone forgets about them immediately, and no one likes to even look at them.
Otherwise your thesis is “you just have to make good games”, where their goodness can only be determined by their popularity and thus it's not clear what you're talking about.

yRaz said:

Well, maybe the solution is to make games people want to play? If you want sales, you have to cater to the majority of the market. 80% of the market has 60 class card's or below. That number goes up if you include console sales.

Click to expand...

What does it mean to make games that people want to play? Apparently, if you didn't read the article well, it seems that people want to play multiplayer games, judging by the popularity of Fortnight, pugb, pawlord (the game actually died a month after release, but sold more than 40 million copies), and so on.
And if so many people play these games, it means that many people like them, and therefore according to your position, these are the games that should be made? Well apparently many AAA developers will be doing that soon. Starting with From Software with their new battle royle elden ring cringe.
Otherwise what else do you want to say, you literally determine the quality of a game by its popularity and sales, because you can't evaluate games on the basis of other criteria.

Eldrach said:

The thing is, if your games has amazing graphics and a generic boring story, it will fail.
Make a great game, with great graphics and a great story - and your game will be a benchmark for the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

Eldrach said:

The thing is, if your games has amazing graphics and a generic boring story, it will fail.
Make a great game, with great graphics and a great story - and your game will be a benchmark for the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that most gamers are interested in story in games?Doesn't the general data and this article illustrate which games are popular and that these games are not about story at all. In the past gamers at least cited gameplay as a counterbalance to graphics, but now suddenly everyone has become such a connoisseur of story? I don't think it's at all possible to prove that story has any more important role in games than graphics or gameplay. Story in games has always been something secondary. Gameplay hasn't evolved in over 20 years. Graphics are the only thing that has the ability to evolve, and to think that graphics are such a costly factor in an era of advancing technology seems pretty delusional.

GodisanAtheist said:

-Yep.

When I was younger I loved the social element of gaming, but as I've gotten older I've gone over to really craving strong single player narrative driven games, preferably if they're "short" like 15-20 hours or so.

I got a lot of stuff on my plate and I really enjoy games that don't waste my time.

Click to expand...

Judging by some senior figures as this article shows, people who like single player games are between 40 and 50 years old. I never thought I was that old, but these people know better. Although I remember being quite young when I decidedly planted a Red Flag over all multiplayer games without exception.

Just about everything someone has said here has some truth

No one programming a C64 would make a photorealistic game

Every old agrees game play is number one

Everyone agrees with open world games with more immersion is better

People disagree with what makes better

Some companies do it better and cheaper

The Story is and always will be the number one immersion technique see famous novels

Some people think the number one problem is non-binary or gay characters rammed down their face ( ie in the game ) ( yes I know - their main complaint is too many , or some unneeded side story - superfluous Hi I'm Jim , I'm in this game I swear by a keto/carnivore diet , did I tell you carbs are poison, don't eat those apples, they are bad, we need to hunt 4 legged meat, where should we go Jim? Did I tell my bloods were bad , now they they are fantastic on my keto diet , what was your question - just go where hunting and fishing is good )

Studios , Sony , MS want a ROI

So maybe a scale back now, but sure as Shinigamis like apples we will see another surge in the future

With the rising cost of graphics and graphics cards, I think I'll go back to reading a book a week.

Flagellant said:

Where do you get the idea that most gamers are interested in story in games?Doesn't the general data and this article illustrate which games are popular and that these games are not about story at all. In the past gamers at least cited gameplay as a counterbalance to graphics, but now suddenly everyone has become such a connoisseur of story? I don't think it's at all possible to prove that story has any more important role in games than graphics or gameplay. Story in games has always been something secondary. Gameplay hasn't evolved in over 20 years. Graphics are the only thing that has the ability to evolve, and to think that graphics are such a costly factor in an era of advancing technology seems pretty delusional.

Click to expand...

Saying stories aren't evolving is incorrect. Let's take The Last of Us 2 for instance (not my favorite story outcome, but still, just to make a point). They use new graphics technology to show bruises and body marks and display so much emotions in the characters eyes and face that you don't have to guess what state the character is in, be it either joy, rage or sorrow.

So a good graphical game that pushes the graphical advances as a tool to enhance the story creates these "benchmark games"..And you need in turn other tools to make this happen as well, like motion capture, directors - screen writers who knows what they're doing. That stuff is super expensive - but the outcome, if the story is good enough - creates something wonderful.

Not all games have to be like that of course, great games can be made with fairly simple graphics - Nintendo has shown that over and over..But I wouldn't want that as my only option on the market. Some times I want my heart ripped out by characters I feel emotionally attached to

Eldrach said:

Saying stories aren't evolving is incorrect. Let's take The Last of Us 2 for instance (not my favorite story outcome, but still, just to make a point). They use new graphics technology to show bruises and body marks and display so much emotions in the characters eyes and face that you don't have to guess what state the character is in, be it either joy, rage or sorrow.

So a good graphical game that pushes the graphical advances as a tool to enhance the story creates these "benchmark games"..And you need in turn other tools to make this happen as well, like motion capture, directors - screen writers who knows what they're doing. That stuff is super expensive - but the outcome, if the story is good enough - creates something wonderful.

Not all games have to be like that of course, great games can be made with fairly simple graphics - Nintendo has shown that over and over..But I wouldn't want that as my only option on the market. Some times I want my heart ripped out by characters I feel emotionally attached to

Click to expand...

I think that using the graphical merits of a game to show that the story is important is a very strange approach.The fact that good graphics can enhance the story is certainly true, but I don't think that the formula of "good graphics + good story" is particularly valuable and says anything. It's the same as saying just “make a good game and everyone will be happy”. Improving the graphics itself improves the perception of other aspects of the game.

Besides, the Last of Us series, although focused on graphics and story, it's debatable that the story is decent (this applies to both games, not just 2). I would say that graphics and attention to detail is more characteristic of these games, you can have fun purely because of immersive combat and realistic gore, even if you are not interested in the story at all. Take that away, and no matter how awesome the story is, the game loses all sense of playing it.
Also, the sales of the series are not that big, considering the unique experience that it offers and the prestige of the developers. Such games in any case will lose in popularity even to completely mediocre products like pawlord and their sales will be inferior in times.

I'm certainly not saying that story is unimportant per se, I'm just saying that we shouldn't pretend that gamers care about it so much. The gamer community has never been as disconnected from reality and adequacy as it is now, and there's little to say about what they want other than to focus on the popularity of a certain game and draw conclusions.
Also, you have to be more careful in assuming that a particular game will be successful simply by virtue of this and that. There are a number of cases when worthy and great games received much less attention than they deserved and vice versa mediocre products received a hype train beyond measure.

And as for the expensiveness of AAA projects, it's a sacrifice that has to be made, otherwise the whole gamedev will turn into an amalgam of battle royal and other greatest multiplayer masterpieces.
The fact that AAA developers have not yet crossed this rubicon, says that they deserve respect, although reading this kind of articles gives the impression that gamers are begging them to do it, because they are so tired of big games.

Certainly, the gaming industry is entering a new era, and the reality is that advanced, realistic graphics alone can no longer guarantee a game’s success. The costs of creating games with such graphics are increasing exponentially, while their commercial returns are gradually declining. While these graphics are technically impressive, we must acknowledge that, for many gamers today, the gameplay experience and social features are more important than visual quality. Games like Minecraft and Fortnite have shown that even with simpler graphics, they can attract millions of players. It seems the industry is shifting towards a new model that focuses more on social interactions and continuous content rather than spending vast amounts on complex graphics.

yRaz said:

Well, maybe the solution is to make games people want to play? If you want sales, you have to cater to the majority of the market. 80% of the market has 60 class card's or below. That number goes up if you include console sales.

Click to expand...

You mean more Minecraft, Fortnite? LOL

urielejh said:

You mean more Minecraft, Fortnite? LOL

Click to expand...

BG3 came out of nowhere, Space marine 2 came out of nowhere. You aren't going to compete with genre leading games, but dumping politics into games is an instant turn off even for people who agree with you. Know why SM2 is successful? Because you run around with a gun and kill monsters. No politics, no ideology, no hidden messages. Know why BG3 is popular? Because it let's you play how you want to. It creates a sandbox that allows you to project yourself onto the world.

So many of these failed games have 1, or both, of these 2 things in common. Over monetization or forcing a message. When you build a game around trying to sell loot boxes, there is very little game that people want. And the politics in games? People play games to escape the world around them. Just because the left has control over the games industry doesn't mean the right wouldn't do the same.

People just want to beat challenges, kill monsters, collect loot and have fun.

Eldrach said:

I'd like to pull up Geforce now as a good example of game streaming, but they've changed it recently, so now it's pretty crap even with the most expensive plan

Click to expand...

Give all control away and that's what's bound to happen? The only surprising thing is that it's happening that soon.

It's the good old drug dealer income model, give away the sample for free/cheap and once the customer is hooked you start upping the price (and in case of tech, start cutting costs which results in a worse product and/or offer the good stuff at even higher prices).
It's great for shareholders, they want more profit every year? Just up the subscription costs every year, infinite money!

yRaz said:

People just want to beat challenges, kill monsters, collect loot and have fun.

Click to expand...

Nazis. You forgot them.