• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ex-PlayStation boss predicts Sony's PS5 games will cost $200m to make, "3 to 4 game types continue to exist and variety is squeezed out"

GymWolf

Gold Member
Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing... I can 100% see why many people would hate this game. This is eactly the reason why I love it :p
But setting that aside - I think the production values are quite exceptional and it looks like an expensive game... barren world or not, graphics are great, actors, music, hours of mocap etc
I didn't hated the game, i bought the thing at day one and played for 40 hours, but for me it was just a 7---
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
Yeah. And franchises with established characters & mechanics lend themselves to refinement as opposed to ground up reinventing effort. Coupled with a built in audience for predictable sales.

All this crying and moaning smells like corp victimhood, all the rage these days.
Don't get me wrong, i would love if every game could have rdr2 budget, the gamers wins in this scenario unless they are sony\M shareholders...
 
He isn't wrong - that's why you need to have bunch of AA tier games to support those few releases. Just as Sony did in ps3 early ps4 era. I feel this is Jim Ryan biggest mistake.
 
P
The point is companies are spending excessive amounts of money on a known super star to either voice over the be scanned in the game.
There is no telling how much Norman Reedus cost for death Stranding.
Imagine spending money for multiple high end actors.

I also call bs on budgets doubling every generation.
Newer engines improve productivity and practicality do half the work with but not limited to procedural generation in open world games.
I'm sorry, what other game in recent memory that has casted an actor or actors in video game besides Death Stranding and 12 Minutes?

Why are you making it sound like this is some industry wide problem when it clearly isn't?

This isn't 2000-whatever where you're hearing Samuel L Jacksons voice booming on the speakers in GTA:SA, the amount of times an actor has appeared in a video game in this era is so few and far in between that it is impossible - and even outright silly - to be pinned as the culprit of why video game budgets are high.
 

Three

Member
Sony's first party game sales numbers are always propped up with bundles though, so it's impossible to see how many people actually went out and spent money on their games.
You are shitting me if you think MS, Nintendo and even third parties don't bundle heavily too.
 
Last edited:
It's crazy to think that games cost this much to make now. I enjoy AAA games as much as the next person but it's been awesome to see more focus on smaller independent titles. This year I've played a bunch of Metroidvanias and smaller titles and barely played any of the bigger titles.

I really think that smaller studios will take the spotlight going forward, especially when it comes to affordability and originality. Regardless, its a good time to be a player, more choice than ever.
 

zedinen

Member
PlayStation revenue will keep on growing until 2024.

However, the number of console gamers has remained stagnant for the last couple of decades.

PlayStation failed to expand into the handheld gaming market.

PSN's explosive growth growth is coming to an end.

Costs of sales (including R&D), operating expenses and capital expenditures keep on growing.

Sony is a mid-tier publisher, way behind the likes of Tencent, Activision Blizzard, NetEase, Nintendo, EA, Take-Two...

Sony needs to acquire new costumers by expanding beyond console or "Nintendize" their business model, boost short-term profits and risk becoming a niche player in a Tencent-dominated world.
 

martino

Member
P

I'm sorry, what other game in recent memory that has casted an actor or actors in video game besides Death Stranding and 12 Minutes?

Why are you making it sound like this is some industry wide problem when it clearly isn't?

This isn't 2000-whatever where you're hearing Samuel L Jacksons voice booming on the speakers in GTA:SA, the amount of times an actor has appeared in a video game in this era is so few and far in between that it is impossible - and even outright silly - to be pinned as the culprit of why video game budgets are high.
cod, far cry all cage games
i would not say it's a trend but some big licences tend to do it lately. (not sony first party thought , even if i could count Christopher Judge as a famous voice but i'm hugely biased)
 
Last edited:
cod, far cry all cage games
i would not say it's a trend but some big licences tend to do it lately. (not sony first party thought , even if i could Christopher Judge as a famous voice but i'm hugely biased)
Yeah, but, again, it seems very few and very far in between if you look at the amount of games released without a "celebrity" included.

It is most certainly NOT the main reason why gaming budgets as a whole (as in the entire industry) are high, though I'm sure it's a pretty penny of a cost.

If every AAA game comes out with A-list actors, then okay, maybe there's a solid discussion to be had. But we've had a number of games out this year alone that do not boast an actor in their games.

And if there was a discussion to be had, I think we're going to need actual details of the salaries provided to all listed actors in games to judge whether it does indeed take a huge chunk on the production cost because I doubt they're paying such a substantial amount upwards of millions and millions for them to join in.

RDR2 cost $540 million to make, and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't have any big named celebrities in the game.

TLOU2 is assumed to cost around $100 million or so (no celebrities involved), while Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain cost roughly $80 million - Kiefer Sutherland included.

Unfortunately there's no information on GOW (2018) production costs, but the third game cost $44 million; so one can assume the fourth game is at least double that as Corey Barlog has stated that Sony gave them a tight budget to work with.

I would agree that Norman Reedus ($65 million networth) probably cost a shit ton though, as his salary is listed as:
  • Monthly: $1,333,333.33
  • Weekly: $307,692.31
  • Daily: $61,538.46
While Giancarlo Esposito's networth is $8 million with a $65 Thousand Per Episode salary.

So again, I just don't think celebrities is where all the money goes towards. That would be budget suicide, or at best, a gimmick to pull in the audience such as Death Stranding.
 
Last edited:

martino

Member
I would agree that Norman Reedus ($65 million networth) probably cost a shit ton though, as his salary is listed as:
  • Monthly: $1,333,333.33
  • Weekly: $307,692.31
  • Daily: $61,538.46
While Giancarlo Esposito's networth is $8 million with a $65 Thousand Per Episode salary.

So again, I just don't think celebrities is where all the money goes towards. That would be career suicide, or at best, a gimmick to pull in the audience such as Death Stranding.
like in sport or high level of management those salary differences makes no sense to me
 
Last edited:

NeoIkaruGAF

Gold Member
I don't give a shit about anything from that post other than Naughty Dog working on standalone multiplayer game and Last Of Us remake. This triggers me.

Why the fuck are they not doing a new IP exclusively for PS5?
Maybe precisely because of the topic at hand?

Even GTA is still pretty much exclusively about GTAV, 8 years after release.

These things cost money and publishers want to milk them for all they’re worth.
 

Faithless83

Banned
For Eurogamer to start the damage control this early, it looks like this showcase is gonna be good.

 

Klik

Member
Well im sure they will still make a profit. Every game will sell AT LEAST 2million copies for 60$ + later on sales + microtransctions.
 
Last edited:

NahaNago

Member
He isn't wrong - that's why you need to have bunch of AA tier games to support those few releases. Just as Sony did in ps3 early ps4 era. I feel this is Jim Ryan biggest mistake.
The problem I see is this. I don't think a lot of the games made during that time were big money makers( I'm pretty sure some Sony exec said like maybe 1 out of like 10 games was super profitable and paid for the rest's development). I'm guessing only the biggest games made a ton of money versus the smaller AA and below stuff and that is why Sony pretty much went full AAA games during the ps4.

They really need to balance what they personally make from the smaller indie style stuff , to AA , and all the way AAA games. This way they could pepper through the year some smaller games and this way it wouldn't feel like we have a drought of Sony news if they did so instead of relying on a few big games each year. Like I would release some artsy or indie like games during the winter time so that it doesn't really compete with the third party AAA games during that time but win some awards.
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
He's most likely right. He even said when he was leaving Sony that something must be done or else those games will become unsustainable. Maybe that was even the reason he left - he couldn't figure out a business model for those 100M SP-only games to be profitable unless sold in 10M+ copies. Sony during PS4 generation got away with not delivering any MP or co-op game, but I think they'll eventuall have to start putting those modes in their games, that's where shit-ton of money lies on top of the base 70$.
 

Knightime_X

Member
This is all Sony's plan to eventually sell games around $90 a pop and their "greatest hits' costing $40-$50.
Tricking gamers into thinking $50 is a bargain.

Fuck you, Sony.
I'm not falling for it.

They already made sure you can't buy a playstation controller alternative for less than $60 unlike ms.
To top it off sony controllers seem to fall into stick drifting much sooner as well.
Sony could EASILY add a deadzone slider to remedy their already microscopic controller thresholds but there is no money in that.
 
Last edited:

Humdinger

Member
Yes, what Layden is saying has been clear to anyone watching the industry for a decade or more. Ballooning budgets = reduced risk, reduced range, fewer big-marquee titles, and longer waits between them. We've seen all of that, and it contributes to my "been there, done that" feeling about gaming.
 
Yes, what Layden is saying has been clear to anyone watching the industry for a decade or more. Ballooning budgets = reduced risk, reduced range, fewer big-marquee titles, and longer waits between them. We've seen all of that, and it contributes to my "been there, done that" feeling about gaming.

Reminds me of the movie industry. Why are we getting a new Matrix instead of something new?
 
Top Bottom