Former PlayStation lead Shawn Layden thinks that "we've lost a lot of the variety in games" releasing these days, with more titles that look like "the game next to it" rather than something entirely unique – and you can thank "the rising cost" of development for that.
It's no secret that game budgets are inflating massively. Earlier this year, it was reported that new AAA games could cost upwards of $300 million to make, and with that in mind, it's little wonder that publishers have such high standards for what actually counts as a success these days. What's more, as Layden, the former president of Sony Interactive Entertainment America, points out, those massive costs are also driving "risk tolerance" extremely low.
"I was at a game awards show a couple of years ago, and I was a bit disappointed to see that all the games I saw at that awards presentation were either zombie apocalypse, some kind of space marines, [or] guys in medieval Europe with really big swords," Layden tells PSI in an interview (below).
"That was so central to what everyone was building. There's so many games that looked like the game next to it and looked like the game next to it," he says, adding: "I'm concerned that in today's world, quirky games like PaRappa the Rapper don't get made anymore."
Layden continues: "I think we've lost a lot of the variety in games that are out there. We have: 'this one's a looter shooter, and this one's a hero shooter, this one's an extraction shooter. Shooter, shooter, shooter.' We have mountains of those. But where's the next Katamari Damacy?"
Furthermore, he warns that the games industry could be losing "the opportunity to attract new users" by refraining from increasing the amount of different kinds of games on offer to players.
With all that said, Layden obviously sees the reason why this is the case: "The rising cost of games." He explains: "I mean, if you could make a game for $5 or $6 million, like we could back on PlayStation One, then you'd do ten games. [...] Like, let's see what people are excited by.
"We had so many crazy games on PS1 because the cost to risk was manageable. You know, you could literally throw away $6 to $7 million on a project that didn't work, but go, 'Well, at least we learned something.' Now, if every throw of the dice is triple digit millions, then risk tolerance goes to about zero."
Now, Layden says, trying to get funding for a new game means getting hit with questions like, "'is it a sequel? Is it an established IP?'" Devs might find themselves pitching something as "'like Fortnite meets Call of Duty in Zombieland,'" he suggests. But ultimately, "no one wants to take a risk on unicorn ballet in space. No one's going to give you any money to make that game, even if it's really super exciting.
"So yeah, the high cost is driving risk tolerance to zero," he concludes. "I think as long as we judge games solely on revenue projections, then, you know, again, your risk tolerance goes to zero."
It's not that games that stray from the mainstream don't exist, of course. I think it's fairly safe to say that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's popularity last year was, at the very least in part, driven by the things that made it different, from its blend of action and turn-based combat, its delightfully French vibes, to its stellar story. Similarly, before Balatro blew up, could you honestly say you'd played a Poker-themed roguelike deckbuilder full of illegal cards and weird Jokers? I doubt it, somehow. The point remains – let's have more unique, weird, and wonderful games, please.
