GI Sprint covers Shawn Layden's recommendations for accelerating and reducing the costs of game development
In 2020, Shawn Layden first raised concerns regarding escalating costs in game development.
Speaking at Gamelab Live, Layden noted that the rising expense of producing AAA games was becoming unsustainable. He warned that as the industry transitions to the PS5 and Xbox Series X, growth might be constrained.
Fast forward four years, and Layden's warnings resonate more loudly than ever. We reconnected with him for our GI Sprint series, focusing on reducing game development costs.
"Unfortunately, it brings me no joy to say I was correct," Layden comments. "It wasn't some profound forecast; it was observing trends over 25 years of gaming. The cost trajectory only heads upward. Games don't become more affordable, shorter, or simpler—they become increasingly complex and expensive."
He adds, "The major blockbuster games cost between $150 to $250 million, placing a tremendous strain on the development model and publishers, contributing to certain market shrinkages we've observed."
In the next three weeks, we'll delve into strategies for speeding up game development and, consequently, reducing costs. In our initial podcast, Layden shares his recommendations for studios to consider. You can view the podcast below, download it here, or listen on your preferred podcast platform.
Consider Shorter Games
Developers need to question if larger games are indeed superior. Layden points out, "Only 32% of players finish games, meaning a significant portion of game content goes unseen by 68% of customers. Should we continue creating such extensive content that goes largely unutilized?"
"Completing a full-length game is costly. Shorter timelines and reduced content can lower expenses and accelerate market entry. This could satisfy customers sooner as opposed to making them wait for years," he says.
"Only 32% of players finish games, meaning a significant portion of game content goes unseen by 68% of customers."
Layden argues that game length is no longer the critical factor it once was. "During the PlayStation 1, 2, and 3 eras, game length was a major selling point, often assessed based on gameplay time per dollar spent. Given that the average gamer back then was in their late teens or early twenties—with more time and less money—it made sense."
He continues, "Nowadays, gamers are near their 30s on average, often balancing more disposable income with less free time. Epic games like Red Dead Redemption 2 demand considerable time investment. Our goal should be to understand what players truly want: engaging, high-quality games devoid of unnecessary time fillers known as 'grinding.’"
Reevaluate Photorealism
Layden suggests that heavy investment in features like ray-tracing may not yield sufficient returns, as most players don't notice these enhancements. "We’ve stressed visual quality, striving for near photorealism. But has it improved gameplay or storytelling?"
"We're in the realm of graphical differences that only dogs can hear."
He points out that visual advancements might be incremental at this stage, effectively undetectable by the majority. "As the console war spun into a technology race, discussions around metrics like teraflops became common despite many not understanding them fully. We’re now at a juncture where enhancements like advanced ray-tracing and higher frame rates (60-120 FPS) may not significantly impact the player experience."
Layden concludes that developers should focus on creating engaging, entertaining experiences rather than continually pursuing marginal graphic improvements. "What can we do to make our games entertaining and interactive, ensuring players feel they get value for their money? This shift in focus will also support fair compensation for developers."
The industry faces a pivotal question: Will gamers accept shorter titles without cutting-edge graphics?
"Well you don't say the quiet part out loud [Laughter]. Again, let's stop viewing the game as a mere collection of time-based actions with high visual appeal. Our goal should be to create an engaging activity with set rules and characters, rather than analyzing a game solely based on whether its frame rate is consistently 60. You don't critique movies in this manner."
Leverage Technology to Lighten Workloads
Regarding AI, Layden emphasizes the importance of developers creating tools that enable automation in the game development process.
"For four decades, the method of making games has largely stayed the same," he points out. "With increasing game complexity or higher demand for art assets, our typical solution has been to increase manpower, often outsourcing to regions like Malaysia or Eastern Europe. Essentially, labor has been the go-to answer for growing workloads and project scopes. It's time for some of the brightest minds in computer science to make machines handle more of the work.
"We need technology to shoulder more of the burden, providing advanced tools and engines. Hello Games has demonstrated this with No Man's Sky, a game with nearly limitless scope crafted by fewer than ten people. They succeeded by heavily investing in creating a toolset that allowed repetitive procedural tasks to be handled by the machine. Integrating more of this approach into gaming is essential."
"We need to make the machine do more of the work."
While AI tools can assist, Layden is skeptical about AI fully taking over game development.
"AI will serve as an assisting technology," he remarks. "Although some business consulting groups predict that by 2030 half of all games will be AI-created, that seems improbable. AI can only look backward, synthesizing information to give the illusion of foresight. It's akin to a keen intern who can churn out content quickly, but still requires fact-checking as it can often be unreliable.
"AI excels at condensing a lot of information into a few paragraphs, useful for drafting. Some video AI tools allow for rapid scene mock-ups, aiding the ideation phase by speeding up initial visualization. However, I don't foresee AI writing complete games anytime soon."
Adopt Discipline and Prioritize Ruthlessly
Layden also stresses the importance of strict adherence to deadlines, suggesting that there are valuable lessons to be learned from the development of sports games.
"Studios often cling to ideas or wishes without continuously re-evaluating their worth," he asserts. "It's important to fast-track proof of concept and technology so you can decisively abandon unworkable ideas. Continually trying to make something functional can delay the entire project. It's crucial to have a clear production plan and stick to deadlines. Avoid being lenient with your alpha or beta targets."
"You've got to have a disciplined idea of what you want to make and how you're going to make it. Hold your deadlines tight. Don't be lenient on your alpha or beta targets."
"Look at teams creating annual sports games; their efficiency is astonishing. For example, at my old company, where MLB: The Show is developed in San Diego, they have to meet the same deadline every year—April 1st. They recognize their yearly variables and focus on maintaining and enhancing the game efficiently. They set a cut-off point where they declare the features locked and the game complete."
"While it's important to leave room for creativity and problem-solving, robust production management is key. Sometimes great features miss the development window and need to be deferred to avoid disrupting the project."
In conclusion, if game development cycles can be reduced to approximately three years, the reluctance to drop an idea or feature would decrease.
"Turning games around in two to three years rather than five to six makes it easier to set an idea aside with the assurance it can be revisited soon. In today's longer development cycles, missing the current window could mean an idea never gets implemented."
