Unity can't make good Triple A games?

Sure, they could make the same game as Blizzard for cheaper. But that's all they could do is make it. They couldn't market it, they couldn't advertise it, they couldn't localize it, they couldn't legally protect it, they couldn't manage the esports side of it, they couldn't manage the server costs, they couldn't do a lot of things. People fail to realize that developing the game itself is only a fraction of the budget that goes into games as big as Hearthstone.

 

Just talking about budget, not sales.
Though our game is not quite 25mill yet, we are close, and will be at or close to that number by the end of the year.
But, it is hard to compare any mobile title compared to console/PC, the player base is just so much more massive. Lego Star Wars is one the most successful star wars titles ever and in general a top seller on platforms, it only got around 11mill total (combined). Mobile and console are just very different.

 

You got me. Those 20 people must be amazing if they alone develop, market, advertise, localize, act as their own legal counsel, manage the servers, HR, international offices, etc.

 

The budget that goes into a game encompasses everything regarding the game, not just the development (programming, art and design). Also, please tell me which SINGLE Star Wars game you're working on that has anywhere near 25 million players. The biggest SINGLE Star Wars game is SWTOR and it doesn't have anywhere remotely near the amount of players that Hearthstone has. Hearthstone probably had 5x more players in the beta.

 

Indeed. Those 20 people are just the very edge of the dev. They have a huge and experienced staff at their backs. As you point out, building != running.

 

Doesn't matter whether we're talking about "building" or "running." The budget encompasses everything regarding the game, and will only continue to grow. SWTOR, the single biggest star wars game, will be dead in 10 years. Hearthstone will still be going strong, just like all Blizzard games. This means its overall budget will be higher.

 

Yea, obviously I get that. You were talking size in sales, I was saying size in budget. We have had at least one (possibly two) games last year that cost nearly what hearthstone did, that never launched. Because of our scale, some of our games have a crazy high budget, that is solely due to the ip and size of our company. Doesn't mean the sell better or are of better quality, just cost a lot more.

SW : Commander, its in my sig.

 

If the games are dead, what makes you think that their budget is even close to the overall budget of one of the most played games in the world that will continue to be one of the most played games in the world for years and years to come?

 

Sort of. As a total cost the budget will go up, but return. Games in later life/sunset have a much much smaller cost to maintain compared to their production return. A bulk of the costs are going to be in the launch/first year.

 

Hearthstone is one of the most played games? You're joking right?

 

The return on investment has nothing to do with how high the budget of the game is. As the game continues on for a long time, the total budget of the game since it's conception will continue to grow. This is why you can't say that a mobile star wars game that will last for a couple of years at best will have a higher budget than a game that will be around for a very long time, and you know it will be around for a very long time because every single game that Blizzard makes lasts for a very long time.

 

Every single one of Blizzard's games is one of the most played games in the world. Hate to break it to you.

EDIT: Franchises might be the proper word.

 

Production budget. Ongoing budget is different because it is measured (and prod levels adjusted) directly against revenue. Production budget is the gamble until (or if) you shift in to the black. Once in live ops (talking about somo games, here not console), the budget is reflective of on going revenue. Also, if it tanks, the game is shut down and the budget drops to zero.

 

World of Warcraft may be a very successful MMO, but it is dwarfed by other games. At its peak in October 2010 it had twelve million subscribers. That may seem very impressive, but it is nothing compared to other games.

Check out Wikipedia's best selling video games for all platforms. Every single entry is bigger than WoW.

http://techland.time.com/2013/05/09/the-inexorable-decline-of-world-of-warcraft/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#All_platforms

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

most expensive games ever. Some of which were flat out bad.

Then money makinest games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

Something you quickly notice.. The highest selling games are usually pioneers of a genre or inventive in one way or another more so than anything else. Not graphically sophisticated.

Since I assume the OP was directly referring to Unity's rendering capabilities. I think they are looking at the whole thing incorrectly. Will you be able to make the next crysis.. probably not. Do you want to? Probably not..

 

You mean aside from the fact that World of Warcraft is near the bottom in budget?

 

25 million people have played Hearthstone. That puts it pretty damn high in that list. So, like I said, it's one of the most played games in the world.

12 million subscribers for World of Warcraft at its peak does not mean it has only had 12 million players. In fact, it has had over 100 million players in its lifetime, which literally puts it at number 1.

 

That's the number of accounts it has had. It isn't a good statistic to determine sales though because World of Warcraft has a free tier with a level cap of 20.

 

And somehow that means it's not one of the most played games of all time? What?

StarCraft, WarCraft, World of WarCraft, Hearthstone, Diablo. All of them are among the most played games of all time. This is a fact.

I never said that any of the games were the best selling games of all time. I said they are among the most played games of all time, which is 100% true. Sorry if that bothers you.

 

heh... let's not forget that Colonial Marines was a AAA game.

 

Of course WoW, and the *craft franchises (and Diablo) are some of the top games. We are fortunate enough to have some of those talented folks on our game(s).

 

Not only is that true, but they have crazy long life spans, and not just WoW.

 

How did we shift from discussing budget to number of players again?

 

(Urp!) Ugh, I just threw up a little in my mouth. As a self-proclaimed Aliens super-fan, Colonial Marines was one of my biggest disappointments of the past decade. Thank goodness I got Alien: Isolation to wash the taste out of my mouth.

Aliens: Colonial Marines was a text book example of a big-budget train-wreck. Lots of money was spent on a major license, promotion, and unusually long development. And the end result was an absolute mess. From the sound of it, the general development was also a complete mess. A lot of resources getting thrown around, but no one stepping forward to take charge and wrangle everything into a proper effort.

This is the kind of example we point to when we want to highlight that lack of proper management can sink even the surest bet. Aliens: Colonial Marines was an inevitable win-win on paper. That it failed so badly is a study in poor handling. Conversely, Alien: Isolation is a text book example of the exact opposite.

 

However again, this is PC games. SOMO is very different. Games like Candy Crush are probably the most played games in the world. (Angry Birds, clash, GoW, Farmville, etc.) In fact for CC, they are close to or over 25million DAU. Meaning 25 million unique players will play Candy Crush today. We had a casual game (still live) that was a top game 3 years ago, it peaked a 12million DAU, and well over a couple of hundred million players in the first two years. (don't know what the current total is).

 

Totally agree. Seriously, that game should have been very hard to screw up. Everything was right there in the fiction. It was a travesty.

 

Hearthstone is also on mobile and phones now. Cha-ching again, Blizzard.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/26/how-to-install-hearthstone/

 

Duke nukem forever ring a bell?

 

Imagine them releasing WoW on mobile.

 

This is actually an excellent point. There's a lot of low quality trash made in unity, and it's always clear front and centre, whose engine it is made on. I think this might be harmful to unity's reputation.

Still, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
FWIW, i don't get the fuss about not wanting a splash screen, i'd happily display one even if i had pro (or at least the unity logo somewhere). Though i'd probably make it skippable for quickstarting.

 

I thought this was about Unity and AAA games? Let's cut the definitions here, because AAA is not what AAA used to be. In fact I'm really not sure what the hell "AAA" is nowadays, at one point it was large budget, cutting edge tech and quality games.

Now it seems to be reduced to semantics. But let's pretend for a second we think of AAA with huge R&D budgets on the cutting edge of graphics and gameplay, like Crysis series, Metro, Witcher 3, Batman Arkham, Mass Effect, Skyrim, Fallout..

I've never personally seen a game come out of Unity that could match the above titles, with any engine it would be very difficult and as said if you're an Indie chances are you'd be pretty silly to attempt it. But anyway, in Unity 4.X no you had no chance of doing any of them.

In Unity 5? Well the verdict is still out there, it feels to me like it should be able to.. But I'll get back to you on that .

 

None of the regular, sane forum members get the fuss. But apparently its a big deal that totally become a thing with the release of Unity 5. Seems like it was easy to accept a cut down version of the engine with a splash screen. But totally not acceptable to have a full featured version with a splash screen.

This is a valid point. The rise of casual game, mobile games, the ease of distribution with app stores and steam, and the availability of decent engines has all blurred the lines around what is AAA.

 

How about this definition? A "AAA" game is one that can get onto Steam without having to use Greenlight.

 

This says it all...



It is your skills that count, not the engine.

It's like saying,

Can Maya make AAA models?
Can C# make AAA non-game applications?
Can Photoshop make great art?

 

Don't be silly, if you dared to push Unity 4 with it's 32-bit limitation it would fall over constantly if it would load at all. That's every bit to do with the engine and is one case of many..

 

Recently, Shadow of Mordor, Far Cry 4, Assasins Creed Unity/Rogue, Dying Light

These are all AAA games, and pretty cutting edge in tech.

 

Ya see we're getting it and I agree with @Ryiah I bet none of them had to be greenlit ..

 

Bottom line is can Unity 5 be used by a well funded company with highly established talented developers and artists to create a high quality game as good as their OWN in house engine? The answer is obviously yes.

So the REAL question is; can WE the independent developer(s) using Unity 5 with what talent and available funds we currently have, can WE create a game that can be as popular or as successful as the current or past mainstream titles like The Witcher?

One last thing, for me when the discussion of games and companies comes up and the term "AAA" is used I always interpret it as meaning Well Funded...Highly Experienced...Dedicated Development.

 

This and only this. This should (almost) be the conclusion to the quest of "Unity can't make good Triple A games?"
This sums up the hundreds of similar questionnement.

 

Easy answer to this is that Unity started off as a 3D web plugin. And is gradually being redesigned as a multi-platform game engine.

 

No, it started off for Mac. Windows and browser support was added later.

http://news.dice.com/2013/06/03/how-unity3d-become-a-game-development-beast/

 

Someone explain to me why single enviro artists in UE4 make better looking scenes than anything that's ever come out of Unity!? The answer to my eyes is obvious, but I wonder sometimes whether I'm alone in this.

Going one step further, there's better looking things coming out by single artists than there is in AAA games.

Question really is, what's the base line here? What is the marker that really allows us "indies" to achieve what were looking for. The issue isn't making something pretty, it's making something pretty that plays well and works on crap hardware.

Now that's the real challenge.. Which takes time, experience and money. If it's just pretty pictures people want, then there's far better than Unity out there. For games, now that's a different matter.

 

I think graphic in Unity can be very good and that not the problem but optimization of that is very bad.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Optimisation is good or bad in Unity? And why?

 

He probably means that if you e.g. recreate a city scene from Assassins Creed in Unity that would look as good you would get really bad performance. That is logical because Assassins Creed is optimized very much to just do that fast and Unity is general purpose.

To do that you would need a Unity source code license and replace major parts of Unity. So if you have the money to create Assassins Creed it is probably easier to roll your own engine for it.

 

I used to think this, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not saying I'd jump straight into such a project, but I'd at least be willing to prototype the concept and see how far Unity could get. And, to be honest, if I were to do that now I'd be conservatively confident of getting positive results.

 

I can't believe this thread has gone so far!
Unity can be used to create AAA games, for sure. It is the problem of developers and artists if they can not make such.
Precalculate what are not necessary to be calculated in realtime. Give importance to gameplay features according to target gamer's feedback/choice. Prerender what are not necessary to be calculated in realtime; draw which needs to be drawn, otherwise discard them. Its a simple equation. Why whould I need a vast terrain for a hack n slash close ranged combat?
Plus the more interesting fact is cost-time graph. I believe few indie could afford that.

 

I think there seems to be a bit of confusion here, if you set out on the AAA / AA path it doesn't matter what game looks like now it matters what they'll look like in three years when you come to release the game.

A hack n' slash isn't really a "AAA" game in the standard sense, not that it can't equate to AAA amounts of money. Blizzard made Diablo who are a AAA development company, but Torchlight was made by an indie developer. Both games are on similar footing, so they're bother either AAA or they're not..

If you compare both to a big budget AAA game like Farcry, Crysis or witcher 3. Then the hack n' slash in terms of size, scope and graphics are on different playing fields.

It's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be.

 

Assassin's Creed: Identity is made with Unity 4, is set in a big city scene and is on mobile:

 

Dang thats cool! Looks like one of the regular console versions with some minor corner cutting.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...s-fans-with-assassins-creed-identity-game.htm