3 ms·

Back in the day, I remember a Blizzard interview on pre-Wrath WoW raid design. They explained how they didn't like that they spent a ton of money and effort dev

Back in the day, I remember a Blizzard interview on pre-Wrath WoW raid design. They explained how they didn't like that they spent a ton of money and effort developing end-game content that less than 1% of their playerbase would ever see. And development costs have only risen since then. Moreso than needing handholding due to game mechanics or "too much" anything, I've always felt that it stems from a developer need for players to experience what you made. Or even just convincing the accountants that each additional cost of development will directly impact the majority of players (aka they don't get stuck or give up halfway through.)

ethbr1 1y ago
Exactly. It makes little sense to fund development that few players will ever see. A developer/publisher could instead cut that content and keep the money as profit. That's why I think novelty and 'old AAA game' richness has a ceiling development_cost : unit_of_content ratio. There are things that were feasible for Fallout 1 to do that accountants would lose their shit over today, precisely because they were relatively cheap then and astronomically expensive now. ... the real travesty is the corollary of that though: that gameplay/difficulty must ensure a maximum number of players see all the content. Which has led to the 'impossible to fail' gimmicks that make modern AAA games feel less satisfying. Honestly, it feels like Rockstar and Valve are the only ones making truly great AAA games these days... (But mostly because they're on stable financial footing and willing to take as long as it takes)