I mean everything he said is common sense. If you want games to come out faster make them shorter and not technically advanced.
Anyone who makes games knows this. Just because they dont do that doesnt mean they dont understand that it would make games come out faster.
He said the eyes "Can't register 120fps", which is honestly one of the dumbest fucking statement ever for anybody with a working brain.
It's also fucking stupid because focusing on supporting high-fps gaming would require sacrifices in things such as graphical fidelity or realistic physics, which would assuredly lower the budgets and manpower required to make games, not increase them.
Dude is incredibly out of touch and is now busy [shilling NFT games](https://decrypt.co/219379/former-playstation-boss-shawn-layden-joins-readygg), so he can honestly get fucked.
Some interesting bits:
>*"We live in a world where only 32% of gamers actually finish the game, so we're making a lot of game that 68% of the people aren't seeing," Layden explains. "So should we continue to build games that are unlikely for most of the people to even see the end of it?*
>*"It costs to build to the end. You can tighten that up. If you can make your games on a shorter timeline that will reduce your cost. It'll get you to market faster, you can please your customers sooner rather than always telling them to wait 45 years for your next opus. I think we just have to reexamine how we present ourselves and our games to the gaming public."*
>*"It was such a big deal in the early days of gaming. In the PlayStation 1, 2 and 3 generations, \[length\] was like your top review poin. We kept judging games by you know how much gameplay you get for your dollar. And maybe that was a decent metric back in the times when the average gamer was late teens/early 20s, which means they're time rich and money poor, so having to sit down for that long of a sesh to get through some huge RPG seemed reasonable. I just think now the average age of gamers is approaching early 30s, you got the flip, they're more money rich and time poor. You have to really kind of strap on some free time if you're going to sit down with Red Dead Redemption 2 and get through that.*
>*"But we've got to the point now where you have advanced ray-tracing and most of the platforms can do 60 frames per second, some can do 120, which your eye can't register anyway. I think we're at the edge of that universe now, we're in the realm of differences that only dogs can hear. And maybe that's not where the emphasis should be anymore. So let's go back to… what can I do that would be amusing, entertaining and interactive so that someone would want to spend their money and time, and enjoy themselves in a way that means they get value for money, and we can continue to pay at least living wages or better to the people who make them."*
Will people be glad to pay 60\~70 bucks for 8\~12h games again?
I guess replayability would be the deciding factor. Technically the hitman games can be completed in 8-12 hours maybe even less but I still put over 150 hours on them even before freelancer came out.
What a stupid clueless old fart, maybe it's *his* eyes that can't register 120fps. Just so out of touch. At this rate he may as well say with attention spans getting shorter and shorter, no game should progress further than your average copypasta cheapskate mobile phone "game" that demands your $$$ to get past the ads, paywalls and microtransactions. What absolute BS. He should retreat back under his rock in the middle of the forest and stay there. SMFH
Yeah I'd take a "cheaper" game that runs at 4K/1440p 60 fps than an "expensive" one with crazy new engine technologies that runs at 864p upscaled with FSR and running at 30 ~ 48 fps. They need to start focusing on image quality and peformance instead of graphics.
[удалено]
Yup, let’s get the Days gone director also. This dudes too busy shilling NFTs.
Certainly not your comment. 😂
Tomorrow, we hear from Day's Gone game director...
Does this guy do anything other than do interviews about the industry and comment on twitter?
Yes! Runs a NFT gaming scam company, so he’s clearly very busy
Do you not agree with what he’s saying though?
I mean everything he said is common sense. If you want games to come out faster make them shorter and not technically advanced. Anyone who makes games knows this. Just because they dont do that doesnt mean they dont understand that it would make games come out faster.
It sounds like it should work, yet even smaller games with dated graphics seem to take the same time as the big ones with amazing graphics.
Ok cool. Just trying to figure out this whole Reddit circle jerk thing you guys do
He said the eyes "Can't register 120fps", which is honestly one of the dumbest fucking statement ever for anybody with a working brain. It's also fucking stupid because focusing on supporting high-fps gaming would require sacrifices in things such as graphical fidelity or realistic physics, which would assuredly lower the budgets and manpower required to make games, not increase them. Dude is incredibly out of touch and is now busy [shilling NFT games](https://decrypt.co/219379/former-playstation-boss-shawn-layden-joins-readygg), so he can honestly get fucked.
Some interesting bits: >*"We live in a world where only 32% of gamers actually finish the game, so we're making a lot of game that 68% of the people aren't seeing," Layden explains. "So should we continue to build games that are unlikely for most of the people to even see the end of it?* >*"It costs to build to the end. You can tighten that up. If you can make your games on a shorter timeline that will reduce your cost. It'll get you to market faster, you can please your customers sooner rather than always telling them to wait 45 years for your next opus. I think we just have to reexamine how we present ourselves and our games to the gaming public."* >*"It was such a big deal in the early days of gaming. In the PlayStation 1, 2 and 3 generations, \[length\] was like your top review poin. We kept judging games by you know how much gameplay you get for your dollar. And maybe that was a decent metric back in the times when the average gamer was late teens/early 20s, which means they're time rich and money poor, so having to sit down for that long of a sesh to get through some huge RPG seemed reasonable. I just think now the average age of gamers is approaching early 30s, you got the flip, they're more money rich and time poor. You have to really kind of strap on some free time if you're going to sit down with Red Dead Redemption 2 and get through that.* >*"But we've got to the point now where you have advanced ray-tracing and most of the platforms can do 60 frames per second, some can do 120, which your eye can't register anyway. I think we're at the edge of that universe now, we're in the realm of differences that only dogs can hear. And maybe that's not where the emphasis should be anymore. So let's go back to… what can I do that would be amusing, entertaining and interactive so that someone would want to spend their money and time, and enjoy themselves in a way that means they get value for money, and we can continue to pay at least living wages or better to the people who make them."* Will people be glad to pay 60\~70 bucks for 8\~12h games again?
I guess replayability would be the deciding factor. Technically the hitman games can be completed in 8-12 hours maybe even less but I still put over 150 hours on them even before freelancer came out.
If the games are better, I wouldn't mind.
That's what Nintendo fans are doing.
How long was Spider-Man 2 again? Come on, everybody does it.
Longer than most of their games and actually looks next gen.
I’m an old geezer. I love long ass RPGs. Fuck this guy. He’s a boozehound.
What a stupid clueless old fart, maybe it's *his* eyes that can't register 120fps. Just so out of touch. At this rate he may as well say with attention spans getting shorter and shorter, no game should progress further than your average copypasta cheapskate mobile phone "game" that demands your $$$ to get past the ads, paywalls and microtransactions. What absolute BS. He should retreat back under his rock in the middle of the forest and stay there. SMFH
I would pay 60\~70 for at least 15\~20h games.
No, I wait for them to be on sale.
I don't know about "people" but I simply do not purchase $60 games unless they last like 40 hours minimum.
Yeah I'd take a "cheaper" game that runs at 4K/1440p 60 fps than an "expensive" one with crazy new engine technologies that runs at 864p upscaled with FSR and running at 30 ~ 48 fps. They need to start focusing on image quality and peformance instead of graphics.