Former Ubisoft director, Clair Obscur maker slams AAA dev bloat: "It would've taken 25 years" to make my game

[Reelix]

Two rather important facts that this article is missing.

1.) Ubisoft IS an indie developer. They publish their own titles, so they fall under the definition.

2.) This game cost $20,000,000 to make. This is an absurdly large amount of money given the development time, and a higher cost / year than many AAA titles. Compare this to something like Stardew Valley which cost $50,000 - 1/400th the price.

 

[redgarl]

Your example doesn't really disprove what he's said, though...

Also, that's not what gaslighting means.

He said 25 years to produce and when CDPR began work on The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk, they were already the biggest studio of europe and they put between 3 to 5 years in total to release. So he is frigging gaslighting just to trend.

You are the one not understanding what gaslighting is. It means making you believe what is not the reality for his own benefit.

"Gaslighting is a form of mental manipulation in which information is distorted or misrepresented, selectively omitted to favor the abuser."

This is exactly what he is doing to trend and make his game in the news. We know that no game take 25 years to make... beside Half-Life 3 which is already a meme by itself... even Duke Nukem Forever never took 25 years and it was canceled numerous times.

 

[Squid Surprise]

know that no game take 25 years to make... beside Half-Life 3 which is already a meme by itself... even Duke Nukem Forever never took 25 years and it was canceled numerous times.

what about Star Citizen

 

[upperlemon]

He said 25 years to produce and when CDPR began work on The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk, they were already the biggest studio of europe and they put between 3 to 5 years in total to release. So he is frigging gaslighting just to trend.

You are the one not understanding what gaslighting is. It means making you believe what is not the reality for his own benefit.

"Gaslighting is a form of mental manipulation in which information is distorted or misrepresented, selectively omitted to favor the abuser."

This is exactly what he is doing to trend and make his game in the news. We know that no game take 25 years to make... beside Half-Life 3 which is already a meme by itself... even Duke Nukem Forever never took 25 years and it was canceled numerous times.

He said 25 years to produce and when CDPR began work on The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk, they were already the biggest studio of europe and they put between 3 to 5 years in total to release. So he is frigging gaslighting just to trend.

You are the one not understanding what gaslighting is. It means making you believe what is not the reality for his own benefit.

"Gaslighting is a form of mental manipulation in which information is distorted or misrepresented, selectively omitted to favor the abuser."

This is exactly what he is doing to trend and make his game in the news. We know that no game take 25 years to make... beside Half-Life 3 which is already a meme by itself... even Duke Nukem Forever never took 25 years and it was canceled numerous times.

He doesn’t mean literally 25 years. His exact point is that it would take forever in a huge AAA studio due to red tape. 25 years is just to drive this home. Not gaslighting at all.

“I’m so starving, I could eat a horse” kind-of-thing.

 

[GFitzpatrick47]

"while ignoring the real issue: a growing lack of innovation."

While no one would disagree that this is a problem - and not just in this industry --> hello Hollywood...

This isn't the MAIN issue. The main issue is simply that the "good ones" (see popular) cost a TON of money to make. Big developers can't afford to have their game flop, so gambling that users might like "something new" over buying a sequel of something that's already been proven to sell is a no-brainer for them.

The same thing has happened to Hollywood. It costs an astronomic amount of money to make a movie, and so the "big" movies are sequels, reboots or rehashes of similar plots (looking at you Zach Snyder).

Indie developers - of both movies and games - put up far less money to make their games, and the only way to make a profit is to stand out. Hence, innovation remains for these companies.

You'll see it in every industry. Whenever large amounts of money become involved, people are far less willing to gamble on something new.

"while ignoring the real issue: a growing lack of innovation."

While no one would disagree that this is a problem - and not just in this industry --> hello Hollywood...

This isn't the MAIN issue. The main issue is simply that the "good ones" (see popular) cost a TON of money to make. Big developers can't afford to have their game flop, so gambling that users might like "something new" over buying a sequel of something that's already been proven to sell is a no-brainer for them.

The same thing has happened to Hollywood. It costs an astronomic amount of money to make a movie, and so the "big" movies are sequels, reboots or rehashes of similar plots (looking at you Zach Snyder).

Indie developers - of both movies and games - put up far less money to make their games, and the only way to make a profit is to stand out. Hence, innovation remains for these companies.

You'll see it in every industry. Whenever large amounts of money become involved, people are far less willing to gamble on something new.

You hit the nail on the head.

There's another large problem, particularly when it comes to entertainment and technological advancement, and that's the simply MASSIVE amount of already-extant IP that gamers, movie and TV buffs, and readers can access relatively easily.

Focusing on just gaming, not only do developers run into the financial concerns of high upfront investment with a real possibility of little-to-no profit (and, in fact, significant losses), they also have to contend with many gamers sticking to a small number of games and specific IPs out of enjoyment and familiarity.

Considering that gaming has emerged to no longer be the vestige of children and teenagers, and with a significant chunk of the revenues and profits coming from working adults, it's increasingly difficult to get working adults who have far more limited free time to invest that free time (and the associated cost of the games themselves) into something they can't be near certain they're going to enjoy. Demos are often insufficient (lest they risk spoiling major aspects of the game), renting video games have gone the way of the dodo, and unless they choose to pirate the games, there are very few ways to get a sense of whether you would like the game aside from watching Let's Plays online, and we all know playing a game is often very different than watching someone else play it.

If anything, what I expect is that you're gonna have longer development cycles and more AAA studios going for moonshots: games that will have a 4+ year shelf-life instead of 1-2 year life cycles which are financially untenable save for a handful of studios and IPs. Hell, you may see a move to a quasi-AAAA model, the devolution of the standard AAA game, and smaller investments into Indie and AA games. This is comparable to what's essentially happened in Hollywood; there's a no-man's land financially with movies in the $50-$100m range, especially if they're new IP or in genres that historically don't do well unless you have a genre-defining entry.

 

[Tin Omen SP]

Okay, this is pure garbage...

To give you an idea, all 3 Witcher games took 15 years to do, so Broche is gaslighting royally...

And every one of them were/are total crap

 

[SethNW]

Big corporations like Ubisoft always have two major issues.

First one is that they are publicly traded and that means that their only and top priority purpose is to generate higher value for sharehlders and keep shareholders happy. Because if they don't, shareholders can sue them, if they don't act in best interest of shareholders, and can get CEO or board replaced. This is unlike gamers who can only complain. So they actually need to convince shareholders that gane like Expedition 33 will generate way more money than them trying next lice service with microtransactions. Do bare in mind that shareholders ignore gazillion of lice service flops and see then through eyes of mobile games and successes like Fortnite. And of company decides to go against shareholders, create games with lower perceived profit potential, pay employees more, make games cheaper because they want to be good, shareholders likely will sue them and end it very quickly. Hence why small developers can make what big ones can't, games like Expedition 33, Helldivers, Palworld, Stardew Valley,... And why did example no one managed to dethrone Steam, despite Amazon trying and failing while being way way bigger. Or Epic not making even a dent.

Second issue is flexibility. As mentioned here, anything, any decision, any change, any idea,... all need to go through meetings with multiple teams, multiple decision making levels, getting everyone on same page,... It takes a lot of time. Like for example, let's say they make trailer and people really dislike something. Big corporations needs weeks worth of meetings to talk everything through, make decisions, then make sure all teams get presented change and get them on it, it can take months before change starts happening, if they are unlucky. While small indie team of 5, just goes on longer coffee break, talk it through, make decisions and start working on it afterwards.

So yeah, smaller development studios are way more flexible, can react and make changes faster, don't have anyone dictating them what to make or how, no marketing research governs it,... They can just make game they want, they can make game they wanted to play, but no one made, they can do what they are passionate about and love. Corporations can't, they need to please shareholders and firm games based on market research and trend charts to max out profits, because that is their sole purpose.

 

[ceebee]

They all need to go bankrupt, not for the bad games but for pushing degeneracy.

You people can't keep using words like "degeneracy." It takes away from when it's actually degeneracy. It's like people that use "racism" all the time. What's the "degeneracy" you're referring to?

 

[Lucian Fox]

Okay, this is pure garbage...

To give you an idea, all 3 Witcher games took 15 years to do, so Broche is gaslighting royally...

That's a ten year difference and completely different company.

 

[Lucian Fox]

You people can't keep using words like "degeneracy." It takes away from when it's actually degeneracy. It's like people that use "racism" all the time. What's the "degeneracy" you're referring to?

They're probably complaining about games where people of color or non-straight people exist. I bet they called South Of Midnight woke.

 

[StrikerRocket]

"The signs are already visible: players reject inflated prices and formulaic designs by playing their backlogs and waiting for sales."

Well said and spot on! Has been exactly my stance for a long time now!

 

[Jme Kerul]

Big developers can't afford to have their game flop, so gambling that users might like "something new" over buying a sequel of something that's already been proven to sell is a no-brainer for them.

The same thing has happened to Hollywood.

Volkswagen Golf

Small iterations of the same

 

[PaladinNH]

I've only bought 2 games at full price in the last 12 years Baldur's Gate 3 and Expedition 33, and both were worth supporting the studios for.

Expedition 33 has a really great story that is super unique and refreshing, plus the characters are well thought out individuals that aren't flat and dull. I'm not the biggest fan of turn based games anymore, even though I've played nearly all of the final fantasy series but this new system is quite refreshing.

Funnily I also got the same sort of feel about the foggy/haze. It does fit most areas but I find it lingers a little bit too much in other places where it shouldn't. There are probably some colour reshade mods that will fix it though.

Turning the sharpness off in the ini files completely fixed this "effect" for me. Download ClairObscurFix.

 

[Stingy McDuck]

Okay, this is pure garbage...

To give you an idea, all 3 Witcher games took 15 years to do, so Broche is gaslighting royally...

I think that by "25 years", he meant that he would need 25 years of career experience to even pitch a new concept to his bosses.

 

[Michiel]

Okay, this is pure garbage...

To give you an idea, all 3 Witcher games took 15 years to do, so Broche is gaslighting royally...

He's talking about the time it would cost to work up the ladder to even get to a position where you could pitch such a project, then get said project approved, and then actually made within the corporate structure of a big publisher like Ubisoft.