Shawn Layden Would Like to See 12 to 15 Hour AAA Games Return

[Hermione Granger]

Shawn Layden, a former executive at PlayStation, is calling for change to the developments of bigger and more expensive games and describes the standard AAA procedure as not sustainable.

Layden spoke with Gamebeat as part of Gamelab Live yesterday where they discussed the development cycle as well as the recently released The Last of Us Part 2.

Layden described the game as "the ultimate example" of a story-driven game during the PS4 lifecycle and also on his watch before he left the company in October of last year.

He stated: "We can make you scream and yell and be horrified — those are the easy ones to get," he said. "But if we can make you contemplative, sad, that's really hitting the full gamut of emotional response to the gaming experience."

However, as time has gone on, the development of games have gotten bigger, bolder, longer, and much more expensive. As Matthew from GamesIdustry.biz stated, The Last of Us takes about 15 hours to beat and took 3 and a half years to finish development. The sequel takes about 25 hours to beat and took 6 years to develop. Sony hasn't disclosed the budget on those two games, but it is pretty safe to assume that the prices increased as well.

The former exec reminisced when production budgets were roughly $1 million for even the largest games being made and also referred to a common theory that development costs double with each new generation of hardware.

"The problem with that model is it's just not sustainable," he said, explaining that the current generation has seen the cost of development reach up to $150 million. "I don't think that, in the next generation, you can take those numbers and multiply them by two and think that you can grow. I think the industry as a whole needs to sit back and go, 'Alright, what are we building? What's the audience's expectation? What is the best way to get our story across, and say what we need to say? It's hard for every adventure game to shoot for the 50 to 60-hour gameplay milestone, because that's gonna be so much more expensive to achieve. And in the end you may close some interesting creators and their stories out of the market if that's the kind of threshold they have to meet… We have to reevaluate that."

Layden also continued on discussing how the price of games has continued to stay where they are at now for quite some time. He stated: "It's been $59.99 since I started in this business, but the cost of games has gone up ten times. If you don't have elasticity on the price-point, but you have huge volatility on the cost line, the model becomes more difficult. I think this generation is going to see those two imperatives collide."

He did discuss a possible solution; a return of shorter game lengths. Personally, as I get older, I have less and less time to complete these gargantuan titles. Layden has that same issue and believes shorter experiences will allow gamers to complete more titles as well as could give players tighter and more compelling stories.

"So how can we look at that and say: Is there another answer? Instead of spending five years making an 80-hour game, what does three years and a 15-hour game look like? What would be the cost around that? Is that a full-throated experience?

"Personally, as an older gamer… I would welcome a return to the 12 to 15 hour [AAA] game. I would finish more games, first of all, and just like a well-edited piece of literature or a movie, looking at the discipline around that could give us tighter, more compelling content.

"It's something I'd like to see a return to in this business."

Source: GamesIndustry.biz

Lets discuss about this and give your honest opinion. I wouldn't complain about a shorter game if the story and gameplay is compelling myself.

 

[EnglishALT]

A shorter game wouldn't be bad, especially if they tag something onto it to extend it's value, like a multiplayer element. Now days it is common for one studio to handle the single player and the multiplayer to be given to a different studio to handle. That all being said a massive problem in the game industry is the price of software. Maya, 3Ds Max, etc, cost thousands of dollars, even getting a bundle for all of your workers is still extremely costly.

"It's been $59.99 since I started in this business, but the cost of games has gone up ten times. If you don't have elasticity on the price-point, but you have huge volatility on the cost line, the model becomes more difficult. I think this generation is going to see those two imperatives collide."

This is so true, and it is almost like a bubble in the game industry.

 

[gimmepie]

I think everything said there makes a lot of sense. If developing a game becomes to expensive, you're going to not just block access to a lot of creators, you're going to have to raise the cost of the product too and eventually that will freeze out a lot of potential gamers too. Plus, we know for a fact that you don't need 60 hours to create a compelling story. There's a lot of amazing indie games out there with less-than-revolutionary graphics and 5-15 hour (tops) play times. The first The Last of Us is my favourite game, and like the quote says, is arguably the pinnacle of storytelling in games with a roughly 15 hour play time and smaller budget than the sequel all while being enjoyable as a gaming experience as well as a narrative.

I think it's okay for some games to be a lot longer. Games like the Final Fantasy series often have to explore as many as 10 or more fully-developed characters' personal stories as well as an overarching narrative and that can be hard to accomplish in a shorter game. I don't think that every game needs to be that long though, nor should every game be aiming to be that long if they want to keep a tight narrative and enjoyable gaming experience. I would honestly welcome a return to 15-20 hour games. It'd mean we get to play more games for once, but it would likely also mean better story telling for most and it'd be better for the industry as a whole because it wouldn't be freezing out either creators or consumers.

 

[pkmin3033]

Oh look, a video game executive who wants more money for less work!

I'm sorry, but whilst this SOUNDS reasonable on paper and there are some good, valid points in there, the message is completely distorted because of the source, and where he decides to take it after opening with a reasonable statement: the pricing model. He goes on about $60 and how that's not viable in relation to the cost of production, but that price tag is a myth, especially in the AAA industry where microtransactions and season passes are commonplace. There IS elasticity in the price tag, and it's been built in there by the industry over years of exploitation. Games don't cost $60 any more, and they haven't for years. If a developer wants to charge more than that for the game they will find a way to do so, either by cutting out content to sell back later at a premium, introducing a free-to-play economy with in-game currency or lootboxes, special editions with day-one DLC and cheap plastic tat that you could probably make with household items and some paint, and so on.

And he wants to let developers charge MORE if a game is longer or more expensive to make? He doesn't say it outright, but the mere mention of needing elasticity in the price point is enough to get his view across. That won't make the exploitative trash in these games disappear! Imagine a world where developers can charge whatever they want for their 60+ hour experience which has a free-to-play economy built in. Ubisoft would have a field day with Assassin's Creed, let me tell you. $99.99 for a 200 hour experience...which, by the way, has three DLC packs coming in the future for $29.99 each or $69.99 for all three, if you pre-order now you can get some limited edition DLC, and did we mention our points system where you can buy XP Boosters and weapon/armour/mount skins for real money? Step right up! EA would be jumping for joy because they have the Star Wars license. Prepare for fun with Square Enix's FFVII Remake future parts, too. This would benefit NOBODY other than the people at the very top who are already overpaid. That extra money wouldn't go back into the business to make better games, or act towards removing the practices people so abhor. It would disappear into the bottomless void that is the pockets of the executives, like DEAR Mr. Layden there, and things would remain as they are for the people who would actually deserve the money - the employees of the company. Oh, and the consumer would be able to afford significantly less, too. Does that sound fair to anyone?

That is a TERRIBLE idea and it completely undermines a very valid argument: not all games need to be long to be worth playing. But this is a problem the industry created itself, and a problem it could easily resolve if developers just DID these things...or rather, if executives like him would ALLOW them to just do these things, because I sincerely doubt the creative minds behind longer games are completely unpressured when it comes to deciding how long their games are. Length is frequently marketed as a selling point, and there is a sub-culture around how long a game is because of it. This has only really come about with this generation, too - games that lasted less than 10 hours were pretty common in the PS3 era, and nobody minded this. Some of the most critically well-received games have short campaigns, and plenty of newer games from smaller studios do just fine being 20 hours or less. The bloated open world craze has blown up and now it's like every AAA title has to have an open world or it's not worth anything. But there is absolutely ZERO grounds here to increase the base price of video games...and he has the gall to blame the PLAYERS for this? Who sets player expectations, huh? Maybe if the marketing teams were a little less eager to advertise a game's length, and if games journalism wasn't such a trashy cut-throat world where a high score was all that mattered, maybe the corporate executives at the top wouldn't feel like they were backed into this position. Think about player expectations, indeed. Take some responsibility, for crying out loud. The power to change that culture lies solely in their hands...and you know what, it wouldn't be that difficult either I'd be willing to bet, because brand recognition sells and these AAA series are hugely popular and recognisable. Don't punish consumers for YOUR mistakes by pushing for price elasticity. That is NOT the answer.

So yeah, I agree with him that not all games need to be long, and some AAA titles being less than 20 hours long would be great...especially because it might go some way to helping the poor people making these games be treated fairly, because in the end, they're the victims of all this. Crunch culture is disgusting and it needs to go, and if there is more freedom to make an experience of a length that it should be, rather than what the people at the top think that the consumers think it should be, that's great. Quality is always preferable to quantity, although the two variables are not mutually exclusive by any means. Let developers make what they want to make. That's a message I agree with. But charging MORE for longer games? Introducing price elasticity into an industry that already has that in spades through underhanded means that would not disappear if that happened? Fuck right off, buddy. Games might cost a lot to make, but they also rake in unbelievable sums of money that more than recoup the cost of making them, and too much of that money already lines the pockets of greedy corporate scum like you. Get out.

What a lovely message tainted by a disgusting undertone of the kind of greed that perpetuated the culture he's complaining about. It's so ironic it's not funny.

You want to fix the problems with the game industry? Let developers make want they want to make, stop pushing length as an objective measure of quality in advertising campaigns, and stop exploiting loops in the $60 price tag with...let's call it "additional content" and leave it at that. Try that. Make a single, decent video game that is of the length the developers - NOT the executives - decide it should be, charge $60 for it, and leave it alone. The problem is the greed, not the meagre restrictions on that greed that prevent it from spiralling out of control.

 

[Hermione Granger]

Dawn, he didn't lie about development getting more expensive each generation. He also came from a publisher that pretty much doesn't monetize their games and that is Sony, one of the most consumer friendly publishers when it comes to their games. I would consider giving him some slack because of that.

I'm just hoping monetization doesn't get worse this upcoming generation, but I have a feeling that it will from the third party publishers.

Do also take into account that loot boxes are very likely going to be banned eventually.

 

[pkmin3033]

The cost of making games is another pitfall that the industry has dug for itself by fostering a culture surrounding a game's visuals. Whether or not we ever actually hit a plateau with visuals remains to be seen, but that doesn't change that the AAA video game industry right now is hyper-focused on frame-rates and resolution and all the rest, and that's come from them. If it costs more for them to take things in that direction, that is ENTIRELY on them. They don't have to. The very existence of Nintendo as a profitable company basically proves that none of this is necessary, and the popularity of indie titles also debunks the idea; this is a problem entirely focused around the AAA industry, a.k.a. the most profitable part of it. Sony also makes uncountable sums of money through its subscription models, so they deserve far less sympathy than a standalone developer, because they can absolutely afford it. And that's the main thing: they can afford to sell at a loss if it happens. Because they already make the money back and then some.

Depending on which way Sony goes with the PS5's price, I would say they deserve less latitude as well, as they're talking about "value" in the price in reference to the PS5, which is basically elaborate corporate code for "we're charging you a lot of money but it's worth it because reasons" a lot of the time. They could easily transfer that over to video games and people would lap it up. Sony would be in a better position to do this precisely because a lot of their first-party exclusives don't have trashy exploitative practices that many games have, and because a lot of their first-party exclusives have been around for a long time...because they're already highly profitable. It doesn't matter whether it wouldn't be as bad as Ubisoft or EA doing it, it's still BAD. "Less bad" is not somehow "more acceptable". This "Oh, it could be worse" mentality is precisely what allows people to get away with things that they shouldn't.

My point is that without fixed pricing the "value" of a game becomes even more subjective, and that's extremely dangerous and phenomenally unfair. More expensive to make or not, these companies can EASILY afford the costs, because if they couldn't , they would be out of business. What they need to do is start looking inward, change their practices so that their culture is less toxic and focused around subjective measurements of quality which do not come from consumer expectations, and stop being greedy. It's corporate greed. Costs don't factor into the supposed "need" for price elasticity at all. They just want more money, because it's never enough. On one level I'm not really angry and I don't blame them because this is why companies exist and no doubt these executives are under pressure from shareholders to keep making more and more and more, but on another level I'm furious because you have CEOs like Randy Pitchford and Bobby Kotick (to name the two most infamous) out there who are the ONLY people who would really benefit from that kind of thing. Coming from a former Sony executive, it's disgusting. It's very clear what his thoughts really are. If anything I think price elasticity would make crunch culture worse, because developers would be under more pressure to create longer titles so that executives could justify charging an inflated price for them. This kind of thing would have the exact opposite effect of what he supposedly wants: it would link length and price irreversibly in the minds of consumers.

I realise inflation is a thing (although games have more than adjusted for inflation from a consumer price standpoint; $60 from 2006 is the equivalent to $78.35 now and most season passes cost in excess of $20) and I realise it's more expensive now than it used to be. I know in most other industries you expect a higher price for a more expensive, branded product. But in none of this do I see a valid reason for price elasticity. Price elasticity already exists in the industry, and AAA titles that don't take advantage of practices that consumers have already gotten used to probably don't feel the need to, because they already make enough money. The problem is in corporate practice, not in the economy that they work in. Fixing the price at this level keeps things fair between competitors and, more importantly, affordable for the consumer. These companies have shown that they are creative enough to squeeze more money out of customers, and they absolutely would not stop doing this if the fixed price point vanished. Lootboxes are not the only problem, and whether or not they'll actually get banned remains up in the air...and let's face it, a similar system called something else could just as easily worm it's way into the next games. Or god forbid, they could just have literally everything as DLC. Look at Dead or Alive 5 for an example of what THAT might look like. DLC itself was a dirty concept a couple of generations ago, and they've normalised that practice to the point that people BEG for DLC in games now.

I'm sorry, but...no. He gets no leeway for saying this from me - if anything he gets less, because if Sony is that consumer friendly he should know better than to suggest there needs to be price elasticity for longer games. It's motivated entirely by self-interest and there is zero justification for it. These are corporate giants who realise very large profits from the video games they make, irrespective - or even because of - the cost of those games, because they will sometimes make their budget a selling point too, as if that is a measure of quality. The ability to change a game's length is entirely within their hands, and how a game is perceived by consumers is entirely dependant on their marketing teams. They do not need to change the price, and they should absolutely not be allowed to under any circumstance. I would actually suggest that the only reason he wants to see a return to shorter games is precisely because of that fixed price model: he'd be talking up game length as a measure of quality and justification of inflated price like no tomorrow in a world where $60 wasn't the most that could be charged.

Yeah, I'm not happy with this at all. I am aware he focuses on shorter games and the reason that would be a good thing, but the inference that price elasticity should be a thing for longer games with bigger budgets sends another message entirely...

 

[EnglishALT]

I just want to point out that while many games make alot of money, especially your blockbuster AAA titles like say GTA5 or Call of Duty, the lesser known titles are a gamble, they could become the next Batman Arkham or Spiderman game, or they could be a flash in the pan and barely make their money back, or they could be a loser that does not catch on, or has a bad release window ( Titanfall 2 for example ) or any number of myriad of things.

That isn't even mentioning that most games do not even make it out of development. A studio could spend millions on a game and it never goes beyond a beta state because it doesn't reach the milestones, or because the money dries up, or any number of things. An example of this is a game I was a a part of, Ghostbusters The Video Game. In 2006 the game was out of Alpha and in a pretty playable state in beta testing, then a merger happened with Vivendi Games, and the project was placed in limbo despite millions having been sunk into the game already from development of the engine, to assets, to even the voice acting. It wasn't until Atari came along a year or so later that the game was rescued and actually released.

Another example would be the Avengers game that was scheduled to release when the first movie came out, you would expect a game like that to make a ton of money, considering it was attached to a big name movie, but it never got out of the alpha stage.

My point is, while we can blame the developers for being greedy, alot of money is sunk into games that never see the light of day, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that money will be made back.