Home » blog » Blurring lines: How AAA and indies can benefit each other | Opinion

Blurring lines: How AAA and indies can benefit each other | Opinion

Nice console games September 18, 2024 blog, Development

SaveSavedRemoved 0

Deal Score0

Deal Score0

As
an
industry,
we’re
currently
caught
in
a
perfect
storm
of
rapidly-evolving
technology
and
the
spiraling
demands
of
modern
AAA
games,
with
a
huge
number
of
developers
working
for
years
to
meet
the
level
of
scale
and
fidelity
audiences
have
grown
to
expect.

These
sizable
undertakings
are
now
routinely
measured
in
hundreds
of
millions
of
investor
dollars,
increasingly
complex
to
resource
for
and
develop,
and
rely
on
the
promise
of
shifting
a
mountain
of
copies
in
order
to
turn
a
profit.
The
numbers
are
big,
the
margins
are
slim,
and
the
risks
are
increasingly
high.

Something
has
to
give,
clearly.
Player
appetite
for
sparkling
next-gen
AAA
games
isn’t
going
anywhere
–
hey,
I
wanna
play
’em
too!
–
but
the
financial
and
human
cost
of
putting
out
these
monster-scale
games
is
getting
higher
and
higher,
and
becoming
an
unsustainable
model.

I’m
writing
as
someone
who’s
operated
for
a
long
time
at
both
ends
of
the
spectrum.
I’ve
paid
my
rent
through
releasing
independent
games,
I’ve
freelanced
on
bigger
and
bigger
projects
for
almost
a
decade,
and
now
I
work
as
an
associate
design
director
on
some
of
the
biggest
AAA
games.
I’ve
opened
(and
reluctantly
shuttered)
independent
studios,
before
landing
in
an
exciting
AAA
co-development
shop.
I’ve
truly
seen
it
all.

If
our
entire
ecosystem
is
to
truly
prosper
at
every
scale,
we
must
push
the
exchange
further,
and
figure
out
what
can
come
back
up
the
chain

Therefore,
my
experience
across
the
whole
breadth
of
the
games
industry
tells
me
precisely
one
thing:
the
lines
are
blurring
between
the
extreme
ends
of
the
video
game
industry,
and
the
gap
is
closing.
Delineating
between
AAA,
AA,
and
indie
–
generally
based
on
project
scale
–
is
becoming
less
and
less
useful.

I
say
good!
Let
the
lines
blur
a
little.
Let’s
forget
about
the
silos,
and
cross
the
streams.
Video
game
development
is
an
ecosystem,
not
opposing
camps.
When
one
part
of
our
system
flourishes,
so
too
does
the
rest,
and
we
grow
and
evolve
together.

It
already
works
in
one
direction,
small
studios
have
benefited
enormously
from
trickle-down
technology
and
platforms
engineered
and
maintained
by
the
big
guys.
I
could
spin
up
a
greenfield
independent
project
in
Unreal
Engine
5
today
at
effectively
zero
cost
if
I
so
choose,
and
release
it
to
a
massive
audience
using
the
same
mainstream
technologies
and
platforms
as
the
biggest
developers
and
publishers
use
themselves.
Undeniably
great
for
everyone.

This
in
turn
means,
for
example,
that
the
middle
ground
–
the
AA
development
scale,
whatever
you
like
to
call
it
–
is
now
thriving.
Why?
Because
they’re
getting
the
best
of
both
worlds,
combining
world-class
tooling
and
platforms
with
the
tight
scope
or
creative
compromise
of
smaller
budgets
and
leaner
design
aspirations.
It’s
a
potent
mix.

Smaller-scale
productions
like
Pacific
Drive
or
Stray
retain
the
wild
creativity
of
the
independent
studio,
but
are
presented
through
exceptional
rendering
and
physics
and
tooling.
AAA
behemoths
built
these
engines,
and
small
studios
are
running
with
them
–
inarguably
a
positive
thing.

But
if
our
entire
ecosystem
is
to
truly
prosper
at
every
scale,
we
must
push
the
exchange
further,
and
figure
out
what
can
come
back
up
the
chain.
If
the
AAA
development
machine
is
going
to
keep
putting
out
wonderful
games
at
the
top
end
–
and
I
sincerely
believe
it
will
–
we
must
reach
outward
into
the
rest
of
the
games
ecosystem,
learn
from
it,
and
look
inwards
at
changing
the
way
we
do
things.
Let
the
transfer
work
the
other
way.

There
is
an
often-repeated
phrase
in
indie
circles
that
I
reference
a
lot:
“I
want
shorter
games,
with
worse
graphics,
made
by
people
who
are
paid
more
to
work
less,
and
I’m
not
kidding.”

It’s
a
fun
one-liner,
but
there
is
a
lot
to
think
about
here.
With
my
AAA
developer
hat
on,
this
line
is
a
clear
provocation.
It
says
to
me:
“Let’s
do
a
little
less,
but
do
it
extremely
well.”
And
in
doing
so,
we
reduce
the
human
cost
of
getting
it
done
and
the
risks
involved.

Shorter
games?
To
me,
this
is
really
about
scale.
The
sooner
this
industry
wriggles
itself
free
from
the
notion
that
mind-boggling
length
or
monstrous
amounts
of
content
is
the
only
way
to
measure
value
for
money
for
the
player,
the
better.

Worse
graphics?
There
is
always
an
appetite
for
gaming
at
the
cutting
edge,
of
course,
but
there
must
be
a
tradeoff
point.
Games
like
Hellblade
become
feasible
as
brilliant
technical
showcases
because
they’re
short,
well-designed,
and
compact.
And
yet,
they
are
not
compromised
in
their
ambition
to
deliver
a
perfect,
cutting-edge
experience
that
stays
with
players
long
after
the
credits
roll.

Pay
people
more
to
work
less?
If
these
juggernaut
projects
can
become
a
smidge
more
thoughtfully
constrained,
or
just
a
little
more
elegantly
designed,
what
happens?
Happier
devs.
Lower
risk.
And
if
we’re
really
lucky,
good
people
stick
around.

A
provocation
of
my
own,
then.
Consider
creating
a
mind-blowing
amount
of
content
while
also
shooting
for
ultra
slick
visual
fidelity.
This
is
no
problem
if
you
have
$200+
million
to
spend,
a
studio
of
many
hundreds
of
people
to
build
it,
and
the
better
part
of
a
decade
to
deliver
it.
But
this
cannot
possibly
become
the
expected
norm.

AAA
must
compromise
somewhere,
and
this
is
where
I
firmly
believe
we
can
learn
from
the
bold
design
and
constraint
found
at
the
smaller
ends
of
the
spectrum.
As
a
sector,
we
must
begin
to
understand
that
even
the
mildest
of
limitation
breeds
creativity
and
invention,
not
compromise.
Just
like
our
smaller
counterparts,
we
too
can
design
features
artfully,
engineer
systems
efficiently,
and
strike
out
confidently
through
more
focused
and
sustainable
productions.
You
don’t
have
to
design
and
build
the
entire
universe,
sometimes
you
just
need
to
deliver
a
great
story
or
experience
inside
one.
Let’s
pull
the
camera
in
a
little
bit.

$200+
million
to
spend,
a
studio
of
many
hundreds
of
people
to
build
it,
and
the
better
part
of
a
decade
to
deliver
it…
cannot
possibly
become
the
expected
norm

This
isn’t
just
about
project
scope
or
design,
our
makeup
as
a
AAA
industry
might
be
worth
shifting
too
–
in
fact,
I
believe
this
is
quietly
happening
already.
D3T
is
one
of
a
new
generation
of
successful,
mid-sized
expert
shops
that
operate
as
independent
AAA
partners.
We
drop
in
on
projects,
shore
up
with
our
expertise,
get
things
over
the
line
sustainably
and
efficiently,
and
move
on
to
the
next
challenge.
In,
bang,
and
out.

What’s
interesting
here
is
that,
having
emerged
from
the
indie
scene
and
ended
up
in
co-development,
it
turns
out
that
I’ve
been
doing
the
co-dev
model
all
along.
I’ve
spent
almost
two
decades
making
careful
compromises,
finding
the
right
people
to
join
forces
with
on
projects,
and
adjusting
the
scale
and
fidelity
of
the
work
to
deliver
maximum
bang
for
buck
with
reduced
risk
for
clients.
It
worked
as
an
independent
developer,
and
I’m
seeing
it
work
at
a
much
bigger
scale
in
co-development
now
too.

AAA
must
compromise
somewhere…
we
can
learn
from
the
bold
design
and
constraint
found
at
the
smaller
ends
of
the
spectrum

I
don’t
believe
anyone
who
professes
to
know
what
the
future
of
this
industry
is,
but
perhaps
this
shift
in
team
makeup
and
approach
is
one
of
the
answers.
Perhaps
the
little
guys
who
can
form
up,
move
fast
and
create
things
collaboratively
are
on
to
something,
whether
it’s
our
independent
cousins
or,
like
D3T,
the
bold
co-dev
shops
taking
a
different
route
into
delivering
AAA
games.

No
matter
how
big
you
are,
keeping
a
beady
eye
on
developers
elsewhere
on
planet
gamedev
is
always
a
good
idea,
in
order
to
learn
the
art
of
compromise,
efficiency,
and
bravery.
This
is
how
AAA
can
begin
to
make
small
but
vital
improvements,
and
keep
making
killer
games.

We’re
entering
a
new
era
for
everyone
making
games
at
every
scale.
The
industry
isn’t
going
to
change…
It’s
changing
right
now.
Where
to
next?