Support NeoGAF

[RCU005]

PlayStation and Xbox are laser focused on finding their golden egg with live service games. They say that development costs are in an all-time high for AAA exclusives, but then, there's Nintendo.

Nintendo decided to stay back in the technology race since the Wii. I believe that was a decision they had to make since the Gamecube failed and they were probably going through financial issues, so they were forced to be creative, which ultimately paid off greatly. The Wii U failure was more about the abysmal marketing strategy, than the actual console performance.

Looking back, it was a great decision from Nintendo, but it highlights that gaming is in a weird place right now. It seems that neither publishers nor gamers know exactly what kind of games they want. The best selling game this generation had to be Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. It's a game that, while beautiful, it's not graphic intensive and it might now have been extremely costly to develop.

We expect games to be extremely realistic, have high performance, etc on PS5, Xbox and PC, but for Switch, we just want a game to run well enough to play it and have fun. However, many of Switch games are smaller in scope by design. This is something publishers/devolpers are afraid to make anymore: smaller games. They want to make the biggest games, with the biggest maps, etc. while Nintendo is making games that sell 5m to 50m that surely cost a fraction of those AAA games.

I'm currently playing Fire Emblem Three Houses, and it makes me wonder, how would that game look as a AAA game on PS5. With graphics like Guilty Gear Strive for the characters, highly detailed maps, high-res textures, etc? I think it wouldn't cost as much to develop as games like Spider-Man 2 or FF7 Rebirth.

If you look at the most popular and highest selling games from Nintendo, they are definitely not as costly, of course due to the console they're on, but I don't think they wouldn't be as expensive to make if they were made for PC/PS5. Nintendo has costly franchises like Zelda and Super Smash Bros. but they are selling at least 3x more than any game on other console.

The industry need more of these smaller-scope games, that go along with these huge AAA games. In fact, those AAA games should be like the "blockbuster movie" of the year, while the rest of the year is filled with great games, that are shorter, but still epic.

Would you believe Sony or MS would make a Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, Kirby. They need to start making these smaller games that sell considerably to extremely well, but are less expensive to make overall.

Nintendo is about to release the Switch 2. We all know a new 3D Mario, Mario Kart and Metroid are coming. They will sell million of copies, and all three were probably less expensive than one Spider-Man 2.

What do you think?

 

[64bitmodels]

This is something publishers/devolpers are afraid to make anymore: smaller games. They want to make the biggest games, with the biggest maps, etc. while Nintendo is making games that sell 5m to 50m that surely cost a fraction of those AAA games.

People say that it's graphics driving up the price and while I think it plays a part, it's really the size of these games. Not every game needs to be elden ring or totk. We still like linear short games.

 

[{insert code here}]

Nintendos approach to game development is the correct, logical approach.

 

[West Texas CEO]

Nintendo has learned since the GCN

 

[Ogbert]

I suspect Nintendo still spend a huge amount developing their mainline titles.

Releasing something like ToTK on an underpowered console with almost no bugs takes a lot of time and a lot of money.

 

[64bitmodels]

Nintendos approach to game development is the correct, logical approach.

It's one approach sure but the only right one? Especially when many other devs have made their own GOAT games following different philosophies?

 

[ungalo]

Tropical Freeze is kind of a blockbuster for the 2D plateform, and it didn't sell that well. What sold well are the popular IPs at Nintendo and it's not the norm, only Nintendo can make a lot of money with units sold alone, with midbudget games (you can't compare Mario Kart to your average franchise, doesn't make sense).

The idea that you divide the budget by 2 or 3 then it's fine it's not risky projects anymore doesn't seem true, otherwise we would just have more of those midbudget games.

Ubisoft stopped making 2D Rayman, i'm not sure it's because they absolutely wanted to make a lot of profit very quickly, if that worked decently well for them they would have continued (in my opinion, i could be wrong). The last Prince of Përsia bombed terribly, it's not a big game but there was still a large team behind it.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot. Not A or AAA, something like AA.

 

[BlackTron]

It's one approach sure but the only right one? Especially when many other devs have made their own GOAT games following different philosophies?

A single GOAT game doesn't make a studio, they need to keep making them, and with rising development costs, that's only sustainable for the rare exceptional developer.

Otherwise a single failed game kills the studio. In that scenario you can't be creative.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Sony and MS rely on third parties for those types. It's not as if we're lacking in small to mid-sized games.

 

[MrRibeye]

In my opinion it's about pipelines.

Insomniac has 450 employees. If they make a new 3rd-person action game, they can start prototyping right away. If they make Fire Emblem, half the team twiddles their thumbs for 6 months until the decision makers have made some decisions. That waiting can cost millions of dollars.

 

[Robb]

Lots of claims being made but do we have any data on the budgets for Nintendo’s games? I know there are rough estimates of stuff like TotK (which seem fairly similar to other companies AAA games), but I’ve never seen any official data on this.

 

[Kataploom]

It's one approach sure but the only right one? Especially when many other devs have made their own GOAT games following different philosophies?

The problem I see with those is that others do the same and don't find the same success, also almost none of them find same success than Nintendo, so one can only think it's kind of throwing a coin and see what side it falls on.

Smaller great games are necessary but these studios don't want that, why? Well I heard once that AAA studios want to distance technologically from others so they make games cost and effort hard to catch up and only the big players really compete on it, not sure about that being true but if it was, it paid them jack shit

 

[bender]

Nintendo is smart to stay behind the technology curve but I think we forget that being on that curve gives you same trajectory as the competition. Their development costs are rising and their development teams are larger. It's likely they'll run into similar issues that Microsoft and Sony face due to the cost of any game being so expensive to make. I do think they do a better job of greenlighting smaller projects that require lower sales to be considered a success (Mario Sports games, WarioWare, etc.).

 

[64bitmodels]

A single GOAT game doesn't make a studio, they need to keep making them, and with rising development costs, that's only sustainable for the rare exceptional developer.

Otherwise a single failed game kills the studio. In that scenario you can't be creative.

Its not necessarily the money or the production values that prevent Nintendo from being the "definitive" game maker for me. They know how to budget their games properly and they actually understand the value of smaller games- their games play fine.

But having a more cinematic and realistic approach to games, even with all the budget issues- it's not a bad thing. And it's certainly not an incorrect way of developing games. It's how we got games like MGS, Ace Combat, Gran Turismo and Hitman. Nintendos philosophy prevents them from making games like that.

The issues in the AAA industry are too complex and multifaceted to be fixed by suddenly shifting everything to a cartoony gameplay only Nintendo style game, and even their approach isn't always bulletproof- TOTK took 6 fucking years to make and Metroid Prime 4 is still MIA

 

[Unknown?]

People say that it's graphics driving up the price and while I think it plays a part, it's really the size of these games. Not every game needs to be elden ring or totk. We still like linear short games.

That's not the case here. Majority of users will write off anything under 20 hours.

 

[Neff]

I think Nintendo are smart motherfuckers, that's what I think.

 

[Azelover]

It's estimated that Breath of the Wild took 60 to 70 million dollars to be made. And that is their most expensive game. So I would say It's a mix.

 

[RCU005]

It's estimated that Breath of the Wild took 60 to 70 million dollars to be made. And that is their most expensive game. So I would say It's a mix.

But that's nowhere near the 300 million Spider-Man 2 cost. With the new technology in the Switch 2, development for their most expensive game will probably cost around $100-150 million. That's still half the cost of a AAA game, and sells 5x more.

 

[Woopah]

I don't even think it's right to say that the others don't do smaller titles. Sony for example has Returnal, R&C, Astrobot and Stellar Blade for example.