Ex-Playstation boss Shawn Layden predicts PS5 games will cost $200 million to make, game development “seems to double in cost every platform”

1 : Anonymous2021/09/05 05:10 ID: pi6y50
Ex-Playstation boss Shawn Layden predicts PS5 games will cost $200 million to make, game development "seems to double in cost every platform"
2 : Anonymous2021/09/05 10:15 ID: hbo74c5

This is probably a very unpopular thing to say here but compared to other products, (good) games are incredibly good value for money

ID: hboadyw

Yep and the prices haven't even increased that much during the decades when taken account the inflation, not to mention there is always some re-sell value (in physical ones), or can be bought together with a friend and shared.

ID: hboqeaq

Quite the opposite even. Games got cheaper if you consider inflation

ID: hboimgs

I'd definitely recommend a rental service too for physical owners. Mine is £15 a month and I've had it for around 8 months and saved over £500. Even if I traded in all those games I'd still be down around £300.

ID: hbpycjq

I think they were able to delay the increase for so long because the profit margin is big. When advances in technologies were made they were able to push out product at less operational cost.

Producing physical copies are not that costly like back then when cd format was introduced. Especially now we have access to digital content where the only cost I see is at the server side and physical copies are more of a disc and a case only

ID: hborqyv

Yeah if you find one you like, the $ per hour of entertainment can be very low. Unfortunately I also buy a lot that I don't end up playing much.

ID: hbopxe6

Yep. I say it all the time. Gaming is a fucking bargain compared to sooo many other hobbies.

You're able to spend so many more hours per year interacting with the hobby since its much easier to access than many others. And you'll pay way less still.

ID: hbpa4d1

For the time I get out of most games it’s a peanuts price to pay. That said, it’s harder to risk it on new games you know not enough about. I’d hate dropping $60-70 on a game I hate and would only play for a couple hours at most. But I’ve been pretty good picking so far.

ID: hboj8ur

People need to start thinking about how many quality hours (this means hours of importance, not busywork like Ubisoft open world side content) people have when playing games, and divide that by the price.

If I’m spending less than a dollar per quality hour of game time, I am completely fine with paying what I need to to access said content.

ID: hbpb22w

I much rather play an 8-10 hour game with awesome content than any 100+ hour open world drudgery.

3 : Anonymous2021/09/05 05:45 ID: hbno2ew

Honestly i would happily $70 for game if it has no Microtransactions.

Ubisoft is at $60 but their garbage games is filled with Mircotransactions. Imagine having to pay real money for armour and weapons in a fcking rpg. Looking at you Assassin's Creed.

ID: hbnqzoe

It’s not the MTX that bothers me about the Ubisoft games. It’s the lazy mission design. Almost every mission or objective is go here and clear this camp. It’s so boring and repetitive. Like seriously how about for once put in an effort, take inspiration from Rockstar.

In RDR2 Rockstars brainstorm and research clearly shows as even Hot air baloon is in one of the missions. Like yeah that’s fucking cool. I don’t ever remember doing that from any previous mission. Be creative. I had no idea what was gonna happen when the bank robbery mission in RDR2 started in Saint Denis. I was intrigued. It made me kept playing. Then we are in the middle of an island. Or the other mission where we go and burn down the old ladies mansion. Man RDR2 is unforgettable. I can’t say the same for Ubisoft’s missions.

ID: hboaw8n

Ubisoft is the WWE of videogames

ID: hbny99r

Funny I disliked RDR2 because the missions were repetitive and boring. Go somewhere, shoot people, escape. Rinse and repeat for 50 hours.

ID: hbpeqv1

I have a hypothetical question for you then. Let's say they ripped all microtransactions out of the latest Assassin's Creed. By that I mean the content is gone too. You're left with just the base game, which still has a lot in it. It is a so-called "complete game" because there is nothing additional to buy. Would you then be interested in the game? What is the difference between the two games? One game where you never have the option to buy these things and another where you can just ignore it. Both games, at their core, are of the same quality. One just has microtransactions that you can ignore.

And I can guarantee you there wouldn't be so many skins and weapons and content in these Assassin's Creed games without microtransactions/DLC. So there is no hypothetical where you get it all for $60-70.

ID: hbnob4t

As much as their BS annoys me, i have played the last three AC games without spending a single cent on microtransactions. You can play them perfectly fine without buying mounts, weapons or gear sets etc.

ID: hbnq3fo

It is criminal to charge for weapons and armours in SINGLE PLAYER RPG.

Valhalla has more paid Armours packs then there are armours in the single player

4 : Anonymous2021/09/05 05:31 ID: hbnmws9

Video games are big business, billions of dollars of profit being made, cry me a river.

ID: hbnn0nk


Every next franchise game shatters records from the previous entry. The industry is doing fine.

Take this $70 bs and shove it.

ID: hbnp2of

i wouldnt say every next franchise. But imagining spending double the cost to get the same revenue must be nerve-racking

ID: hbnva42

You say that as if this industry is risk averse lol

ID: hbo2tyf

Although look at how much of that profit is being made through MTX and similar add-ons, as well as how much of that profit is linked to the same few franchises or juggernauts.

The worry here is two-fold. First there's the increased presence of these MTX, even in games with a purchasing fee. It wasn't that long ago that only F2P games would have them, then it was in sports games like FIFA and F2P, and now any $60 game could potentially have them. The second worry is the homogenization of video games, specifically the AAA space, because the cost is so high that the publishers want to minimize risk.

Yes the industry is incredibly successful, but that doesn't mean that every game is successful, and if the methods which create this success are anti-consumer, then you'd best believe that the companies will keep using them.

5 : Anonymous2021/09/05 15:37 ID: hbp41ny

That's a lot of money. Microsoft has 24 first party studios releasing games Day 1 on Game Pass. That is a hell of a lot of mouths to feed for a measly $120 a year.

6 : Anonymous2021/09/05 06:01 ID: hbnpc46

Game development “seems to double in cost every platform,” Layden said, noting that his budgets for recent big PlayStation 4 titles each hit $100 million. “If we can’t stop the cost curve from going up, all we can do is try to de-risk it. That puts you in a place where you’re incentivized toward sequels.” He predicted that PS5 games will cost $200 million to make and that prices will continue to grow exponentially from there.

The full paragraph. Interesting but im sure most of us know by now things being too big to fail

7 : Anonymous2021/09/05 11:40 ID: hbod7ip

AAA games need to tone it down. I’m pretty sure a large sum of the costs come from bloated budget for things like famous actors/voice-actors, famous musicians/composers for soundtrack, marketing campaigns…do we really need hollywood actors in videogames? Games are great because they can provide a different experience from other media, but game studios(specially Sony’s) keep wanting to make games be like movies.

ID: hbor9o9

For better or for worse, these kind of big budget Hollywood-esque games are the differentiator that Sony is doubling down on for this generation.

ID: hbohv4b

Like I get and of course appreciate studios that make huge tech leaps forward but I literally just finished No More Heroes 3 a game with a fucking tiny budget compared to these AAA PS5 games you don't need to spend that much to make a good product. It's about using money smartly

ID: hboo3dn

True, but as a massive fan of NMH1/2 I can't help imagine the game as it could be with relative technological improvements.

When I was playing NMH1 12 years ago, I'd think of how crazy it would be in the future. It's always disappointing to see that they're basically just making the same game/core with changest only at the sides, instead of categoric changes and cutting it's own place in the world like MGS1-2-3-4

NMH with DMCV's engine and return to a dense open world or more expansive adventure

8 : Anonymous2021/09/05 10:23 ID: hbo7p79

The micro-transactions, game disguised as beta because live-service, passes, DLCs are the issues here.

They want to keep their big profit margin, their financial report are public, it’s not about survival here, but greed, nothing against it because all companies seek profit, but telling us it’s all about surviving with increased cost, that’s BS. Especially given that most titles also release on ps4 so I doubt horizon 2 is double the development price of horizon 1.

they made no efforts to streamline the ps4 to ps5 transition, especially given the the limited stocks here, rather than being helpful they are trying to bank on people having to purchase on ps4 before finding a ps5. They’re no heroes here,…it’s disrespectful to try and say the opposite…

ID: hboo6st

Nothing wrong with DLC imo.

ID: hbp2zx2

Nothing wrong with DLC unless its content was removed from the original game (a DLC releasing a month after a release or a deluxe kit that has exclusive quests/items etc...) and/or when it's paired with passes, micro-transactions etc.

For instance the DLC of witcher 3 are some of the best and clearly are an example of how it SHOULD be done.

9 : Anonymous2021/09/05 07:09 ID: hbnuhf7

This is why I wait for them to go on sale unless I REALLY want a certain game.

10 : Anonymous2021/09/05 05:12 ID: hbnlagf

I just need one or two AAA games per year.

ID: hbnw936

Fuck that. I want 6 a year at least

ID: hbnwb9x

I don't even need that much to be frank. Between PC, PS5 and Switch, I got more than enough games without anything new.

ID: hbnlibz

That would be fine if the games were on Rockstar Games level of quality and polish. But lets not kid ourselves here. I try to play a new game every month. So i need around 12 games a year lol

ID: hbnmfxw

Plenty of games come out every year. They just don't all end up being that blockbuster title of the year every month. Can't really expect that, so yeah. Maybe a couple of those a year and the rest could still be sizable or fun titles with their own flare.

Indies are cheap and fun a lot of the time too.

ID: hbnyutx

I'd be satisfied with 3-5

11 : Anonymous2021/09/05 14:39 ID: hbow8st

Just because Sony has decided I can afford 90cdn for a new game doesn't mean I'm going to spend that much. I've got plenty in the backlog and everything goes on sale sooner or later.

12 : Anonymous2021/09/05 17:26 ID: hbpisck

Ahm, when I had the NES/SNES some games I bought costed over 180 bucks. SimCity being one of them. And sales…. Ha! Good luck, maybe after a few years or praying your game isn’t popular. On the flip side, very cool game cases, a nice little book/map/poster added and those sweet big ass guides where every little nook in a game is being discussed.

Gaming was hella expensive and if you had 10 or more games you were to go to play with at school. I had wonderfull parents who happily bought me a game or two at Christmas/birthday/Sinterklaas so after a few years I had a big collection on my SNES/gameboy.

Also, shoutout to the Commodore 64 that made gaming accessible to everyone who wanted to. We had THOUSANDS of games for that one.

ID: hbpqedm

Different times, different markets.

They used to have factories that built cartridges and the boards and chips inside them. Now it's a digital game with zero manufacturing, zero shipping, zero shelf space.

On top of that, the amount of gamers is astronomically higher, raising how many games they can sell. Gaming companies are making now more than ever. Don't let them make you think they're struggling. CEOs and board members just want more more more.

13 : Anonymous2021/09/05 14:35 ID: hbovrhu

I think the industry is starting to move towards making game dev more efficient, which is something plausible when you look at the new storage architecture and the new version of UE.

The less time studios have to spend on tedious busy work, the more time they can focus on asset detail, improved AI and other things that can move the needle.

14 : Anonymous2021/09/05 18:44 ID: hbpte7v

Game development gets more expensive because they take longer and require more expertise to develop. What he's not mentioning is that a huge chunk of these costs are spent on marketing.

He's also the "poor devs" card and not saying that video games are more profitable than ever, especially once taking in the predatory "games as live service" and paid content within the games.

15 : Anonymous2021/09/05 20:25 ID: hbq6wt3

We'll never know because they will just continue to make PS4 games until PS6 is released

16 : Anonymous2021/09/05 21:45 ID: hbqhe0b

Maybe if they laid off the corporate bloat and desire to push needless dlc and just allowed studios to do their thing not crunch out a half finished money grab while burning out the employees the cost wouldn't be so high.

17 : Anonymous2021/09/05 17:41 ID: hbpkt90

Who actually believes this? Yes making a new engine and all that will cost a lot but most people use unreal 4. Businesses love to lie. McDonald’s use to say paying 15 an hour would cause them to go out of business and now they are hiring at $15 with no workers. Weed shops say it’s expensive to grow weed but these people are making lots of money. I heard hellblade setsuna was made by like 7 people. I’m sure it cost them 100 million.

18 : Anonymous2021/09/05 17:45 ID: hbplfqv

Development costs increasing was definitely true in the past, but this generation is different because of player expectations and hardware features that are targeting development ease. Three examples, though there are more:

60 FPS & 4k output target costs nearly nothing in development time and restricts fidelity. So assets aren't really becoming that much more complicated this gen and basically all the work for higher resolution (TAAU) & frame rates (not tying frames & game speed) was already done last gen and implemented at engine level. Raytracing actually saves development money. There's a reason you see indies using this now; it's basically free. You can just turn this on and skip making a lot of pre-baked lighting that would've taken a sizeable budget. The PS5's hardware is designed to solve age-old problems that required a lot of software engineering in the past. The SSD means you don't have to create chunks of redundant data to lower load times. Developers also won't have to bake in narrow view-restricted areas to stream in assets.

Making games has gotten more expensive over time, but the tools are constantly getting better too and the number of gamers is increasing over time. Next gen consoles and GPUs are seeing unprecedented levels of demand.

His doom and gloom about cost and the industry is pretty short-sighted though. For every Ghost of Tsushima, there's a Minecraft, a No Man's Sky. Monster Train. Bigger isn't always better, Cyberpunk was huge, but poorly received compared to something like Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice which was probably 20% its size or less.

19 : Anonymous2021/09/05 08:23 ID: hbnzpz9

I’m fine with £70 as long as there’s no Microtransactions, “DLC” that is just cut out from the main game, etc. If it’s a complete experience then I’m happy enough with it.

20 : Anonymous2021/09/05 08:03 ID: hbnya8i

Is this facebook? Because I see a lot of keyboard warriors who seem to think they know more about the gaming industry than those actually working in it.

21 : Anonymous2021/09/05 09:39 ID: hbo4pbp

No way, Shawn Layden said that? I thought this is only a thing a corporate fuck like Jim Ryan would say /s


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x