Veteran Game Designer Talks about Present and Future of Gaming & Role AI Has in It

Introduction

80.lv: We talked almost 10 years ago, but a lot has changed over those years. Could you give us a little intro on what you do now, and what you did prior to your current job?

Oh my goodness, yes, it was a while ago! I had shipped Uncharted 3, and I was giving a talk at the 2012 GDC about how Naughty Dog polishes its games called “The Last 10”, and we met up for an interview afterward!

Well, I went on to ship The Last of Us and its expansion Left Behind, while also being involved in Uncharted 4 and the pre-production on The Last of Us 2. Eventually, when I moved on from Naughty Dog, I wanted to experience working on different kinds of projects that stretched my knowledge.

I shipped Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare with Infinity Ward, and I shipped a Westworld VR title with Survios. I also joined a few startups that, sadly, didn’t survive. I also joined Blind Squirrel Games and got to experience being in a support studio (i.e., BSG provides teams of developers to contract with publishers in a support capacity).

Here, I got to experience working on many different projects for different publishers, getting to experience a variety of team structures and processes, seeing what did and did not work.

It was on these later projects that I began to realize where our industry was heading. Having been involved in the industry for over 30 years and having had the experience of working with all kinds of projects and teams, I’ve come to see how dysfunctional we are at making video games! It’s a problem space most unlike any other industry in that, in order to fully understand and know the end goal of what the project needs to become, it has to go through the actual process of being made!

This creates a very difficult set of obstacles that has led to a lot of dysfunction, a lot of which we’ve all had the chance to witness these past few decades. And as with any system that gets hyper-stressed beyond its limits, every flaw and crack in that system breaks, causing catastrophic damage. I liken it to an example of attempting to take the engine from a Prius and put it into an F1 car and expect it to run under those conditions... it would blow up spectacularly!

All of this has led me to start my own consulting company called Unhandled Exceptions, with a key focus on helping teams to solve these dysfunctions. I strongly believe we as an industry can make amazing products with smaller budgets and in less time while still delivering solid AAA experiences. It’s a matter of recognizing these dysfunctions and adjusting our process and mindset to correct them. 

Reasons Behind Game Failures

80.lv: What's your take on the situation with high-level flops in the game market? Marathon, Concord, and many others. What would you say are the underlying problems, one or many, that influence this process? Why has this kept happening on this scale most recently?

It’s a good question that I’ve been analyzing myself for a while now. As an industry, we’ve unfortunately dug this giant pit we now find ourselves at the bottom of, and we keep on digging deeper and deeper, never considering how we will be able to get out. I feel there are several key factors that have gotten us into this situation.

The first factor is that the cost of games and hardware has gotten too high. It’s simple economics in that the more expensive a product is, the market for that product gets smaller. Affordability is the obvious answer, but another reason that I think is highly overlooked is that the customer becomes more discerning!

A simple analogy: you’re purchasing a new car. If you buy a Chevrolet for the expected price of a Chevrolet, your quality expectations are going to be much more forgiving than if you buy a Porsche for the expected price of a Porsche! The problem arises when you pay Porsche money and get a Chevrolet! This is where we are as an industry at the moment in the AAA space. Customers are paying $70-$100 for an AAA game, and that game is NOT in a shippable state (many serious bugs, bad performance, missing features to be added in the future, etc). And the player fantasies being delivered just aren’t compelling (more on this in a bit).

The next factor is that video game development has always been an unsolved riddle that we truly haven’t figured out. As I mentioned in the previous question, by its very nature, there are a lot of difficult obstacles that create a lot of dysfunction that to this day we still don’t understand how to address!

We don’t know how to structure the development process to make it both effective and efficient, which increases the costs and time of development. We spend a lot of time wandering, trying ideas, and then having to figure out how to make a game around those ideas. While these long-used processes served us for the past few decades (barely), with requirements and consumer expectations being as high as they are now, these processes are fracturing from being hyper-stressed beyond their limits (the afore-mentioned Prius engine being run at 12,000 RPMs non-stop).

This leads to the biggest factor: we ignore the player fantasy! We over-prioritize starting a game by iterating on great gameplay and mechanics, and while those are a must, they mean nothing if they do not deliver a compelling player fantasy! It is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of a game.

It is the journey we take the player on, what we make the player feel, how we make the player feel it, that when the player steps back from the game, they linger on what they’ve experienced and feel satiated (hopefully wanting more). An itch that the player didn’t know they had has been scratched in the most satisfying way. Because we don’t define the desired player fantasy first, we have no North Star to guide us throughout development, which results in a lot of time and effort wasted.

So, to put these into perspective to answer the question: Consumers have much higher expectations, and are more discerning about spending Porsche money on AAA games. They want a game to provide a compelling player fantasy that speaks to them, that they can invest in, knowing they will be rewarded for their investment.

Yet, as developers, we don’t focus enough on the player fantasy; we stick to putting together collections of ideas and wandering around until we find something fun, then duct-tape and glue it all together. All of this has led to increasing development costs and much longer development times. Our only answer has been to keep on the same path while increasing the costs to the consumer, which results in fewer AAA games being sold, which means less revenue being generated, which means increasing the costs to the consumer… It’s a horrible Mobius Loop with no end in sight.

You mentioned Concord and the Marathon alpha; we can dive into how these factors apply, as both games have similar issues. Both games spent a long time in development, with Concord being 8 years (possibly 10) and Marathon going on its 7th year (according to Google).

For these kinds of games, this is a long time to be in development, which increases the cost of development (Concord was between $200 million-$400 million all in with marketing, Marathon is estimated to be around $100 million just for development at this point). This forces a premium pricing structure as an attempt to recoup costs.

Concord was a hero shooter that sold for $40, a very premium price considering its competition is free to play. Marathon is an extraction shooter using what is considered a premium pricing model in that space $40 for the base version, and $60 for a deluxe edition when it launches officially in 2026.

Both games have player fantasies that are not compelling (especially when considering their competition). Concord was going up against Overwatch and Marvel Rivals, each providing rich and established universes and characters that are the epitome of a hero fantasy. Marathon has a rich history to draw from, and while the high-level backstory presented is intriguing, the execution has created a universe that isn’t alluring (I’m also not convinced that the newly announced changes truly address this problem either).

Both games have been praised for excellent controls and well-tuned mechanics and gameplay, yet clearly, this was not enough to attract players to live in their worlds. All of this, plus a marketplace with competition that is cheaper and provides more desirable player fantasies, it’s pretty clear to see why both failed (we will have to wait and see if the newest changes to Marathon will make a difference, but it has a steep uphill battle ahead).

Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote a memo warning about the state of the movie industry heading towards what he phrased as the “blockbuster mentality.” It’s the same unhealthy situation our industry is facing, with the mentality of pouring more and more money into a project in an attempt to guarantee its success. The mentality that projects created this way will have a guaranteed revenue floor due to big names and marketing budgets, how this has resulted in projects having to be blockbusters to see any success, how this has required consumer prices to increase, shrinking the audience. How projects have become bloated, superficial, formula-driven copycats, rather than a good story well executed.

It is a very insightful message from a smart man of the business… written in 1991 when he still worked for Disney! The introduction section alone speaks volumes, but the whole 28 pages are worth it!

Player Fantasy

80.lv: Talk to us a bit about the idea of player fantasy? What does it mean for the production, and how do you advise aligning with the market to see that the player fantasy is interesting?

The player fantasy is the journey we take the player on. What we make them feel, how we make them feel it, and defining the emotionally engaging experience the player will have. It’s the North Star that guides the team throughout development, as all things that go into the game should be in support of the player fantasy.

It's a 1 to 2-sentence tagline that describes the experience, combined with the game's high-level details. As an example:

Uncharted:
“You are a modern-day Indiana Jones treasure hunter!”

Type of game: cinematic adventure shooter
Camera: 3rd person
Setting: modern-day globetrotting to exotic locations
Themes: good vs evil, self-discovery and growth, sacrifice, relationships
Core mechanics: ADS shooting, mountain climbing–style traversal, physical puzzles

This conveys the heart of the game in an easy-to-understand format that is easy to convey to anybody (the team, new hires, investors, marketing, etc.). It's easy to remember, which means it's easy to bring up in discussions as a guiding principle. So when it comes time to consider what goes into the game, the question that must be asked is, "How does X support the player fantasy of the game?"

It’s also the guide to shape the many ideas we have as developers! So instead of starting with a set of simple ideas about gameplay, mechanics, settings, or story, and trying to make a game out of them, instead define what the player fantasy is that these ideas can be used to create. Evolve the ideas with the player fantasy in mind, as it will keep things focused, leading to less wasted development time and a better quality product!

From a production standpoint, it is now a guide that points the game in a focused direction, a North Star. It makes it much easier to decide what the team should spend its time on, as if an idea presented does not support the fantasy, and it can not be modified to do so, then it shouldn’t go into the game. This is how to keep development from wandering, investing time and resources into ideas that will need to be heavily reworked over and over, and ultimately removed.

The player fantasy is also very easy to explore and iterate upon with a very small team that doesn’t have to involve making actual gameplay. Concept art, rough character models, animatics, and an in-engine visual example to capture feeling and mood are all you need.

The goal is to convey the feeling of the game, to hint at its emotionally engaging experience. It is not to create any kind of cinematic or game sequence; it’s to whet the appetite of those who see it and to communicate what the heart of the game is about.

In a month or two, a player fantasy pitch deck can be created showcasing how the tagline translates, as well as exploring the details to see how they work with the player fantasy (type of game, setting, themes, core mechanics, etc.). This now creates a very solid foundation to springboard from, and is an asset that can be used to get people aligned.

This can then be used to see how it makes people feel who are not associated with the project. Bringing in other gamers in the company, on other teams, family and friends, etc…. A very targeted group to see how it’s resonating, but I am wary to suggest this should be used for official market testing “in the wild”.

While I understand the desire to do this, there are too many examples of creative works that, had they been market tested for validity at this stage, most likely would not have been given the green light. Look at games like the newly announced Coven of the Chicken Foot and The Free Sheppard. The trailers do a great job hinting at a player fantasy that is alluring and emotionally engaging, and the quality level shown, I think, meets the bar of a AAA title! Yet at this current time in our industry, I find it difficult to believe that publishers would think of these as AAA titles, and that they would be willing to let a bigger studio even attempt these concepts!

The bigger the budget, the more of a guarantee investors want that it will succeed, but as we’ve seen historically across all art, it is incredibly difficult to predict success through this method. We seem to have forgotten that all big IPs that exist now had to be grown out of nothing, and that it’s always a risk.

AI

80.lv: Do you think that with AI and new tech, we will somehow find ways to derisk game development and make it so that we only make great choices? Where does AI even come from in this formula of game-making?

You’ve asked the mega-million dollar question on everyone’s minds! Clearly, AI is going to play a role in some capacity moving forward; we are only in its infancy in terms of what it can do and are experimenting with ways it can be used. One uncomfortable issue that needs to be understood when it comes to this question is that, in order to bring the costs of AAA gaming down, not only will teams have to get smaller, but so will the overall workload.

Addressing the dysfunctions of development I mentioned earlier will be a part of the solution, but using AI to assist in development in some capacity is undoubtedly another part. I fully understand the discussions happening around concerns of AI “taking” jobs that a human can do. It’s a valid and anxiety-inducing concern, yet I also don’t think people fully understand the problem space in this regard. Allow me to go into further detail.

An important concept to grasp is that not all work that an AI does is work that a human was going to do in the first place. One of the constants of video game development is that, when considering the totality of work needed to ship a AAA game as bug-free and as polished as possible, there is already more work than can feasibly be done in any reasonable amount of time or budget.

Shipping a game is about trying to find the sweet spot between bugs, polish, dev time, and dev budget. Because of this limiting factor, even removing AI from the picture entirely, many studios are already incapable of hiring more humans to do this work. So we must be careful when we think, “You should just give that work to a human regardless,” as there’s a good chance that a human was never going to be hired for it in the first place. Now, of course, there can (and will) be bad actors that just want to skim jobs to take in more profit, but I would posit that this will be more of an exception than the rule. It’s important to consider the contexts in which any AI is used in the development process before passing judgment.

As of now, there are two key ways that AI can and is being used:

1) The backend – meaning it aids in development in various ways but does not generate actual content that ships with the product;

2) The frontend – meaning shipping content is being generated with AI. Let me start with the backend case.

Up until around a decade ago, we were able to strike a decent balance on that sweet spot mentioned earlier, but it required excessive crunch times and some delays. Now, the requirements of a AAA game have risen to the point where we can no longer hit that sweet spot effectively with our existing methods. So, in an attempt to fulfill these new requirements, team sizes have grown, development time has increased, and budgets have ballooned.

All of this extra potential goes toward meeting these new requirements, and not toward addressing the already existing problem of there being too much work to begin with. So part of addressing the problem is that we have to back off the workload!

Some of this work can be put into the hands of well-trained AI models on the backend. It would not be taking away a potential job, as teams are already at (or beyond) full capacity and budget, so there was never a role to fill for this work anyway (and, as mentioned, team sizes need to come down as it is).

As developers, we’ve already been automating what we can of this work for decades, but AI models have the potential to allow for more of this automation to be accomplished. This can allow for more iteration passes and for developers to focus on polishing and bug fixing, resulting in a better quality product with fewer people and in less time. And remember, this is a solution to address the already existing excess amount of work that we cannot hire people to do already!

Now, I do not consider this a doom and gloom scenario, but rather a potential to positively restructure and create more jobs. Here’s the reasoning… Our industry will grow if we can produce more AAA-quality products at reduced prices. That means we will need more studios that are smaller, using better processes and tools to help them build these experiences in less time, but still to AAA quality. This would help shift the landscape away from having only a few massive studios focused on expensive blockbusters, which should create more opportunities and roles in the industry.

So, with regards to the backend use of AI, I think this can be a great solution that could hopefully create growth and more opportunities for developers! Now, to talk about the frontend use of AI to generate shipping content, which I think is where the majority of the concern is aimed.

This is where the sentiment, “You should just give that work to a human regardless,” hits harder, as these will be jobs that humans can do. Aside from the budget concerns limiting headcount, as mentioned above, there are some cases where using AI to generate content can make sense.

I know the subject of AI-generated dialog is a hot topic at the moment, involving the game ARC Raiders, so why not dive into that a bit more? Also, a disclaimer: I have no knowledge or understanding of why this decision was made for that game; rather, I want to discuss it in a broader, systemic sense.

Developers strive toward making better player experiences, and one type of system that has always been a bit of a thorn is utility dialog systems. The problem space is that we want to give information to the player in the form of dialog, but there is a dynamic component that needs to cover lots of use cases (as in, the line of dialog needs to include a dynamic object or location at the time it’s used).

This becomes a problem in that this type of dialog easily balloons in scope, with n number of combinations that need to be recorded. As an example, you have information that needs to be conveyed to the player. This information will need to be recorded in various contexts (i.e., casual conditions, combat conditions, stealth conditions, etc.). Each context will need a few variations so they’re not always saying the exact same line.

Then there are the specific words that are dynamic, which could be in the tens or hundreds of entries. Each word also needs multiple recordings to cover the different contexts in which the line was recorded. Then, depending upon the game, this whole set of dialog might need to be recorded for multiple characters.

This requires very precise naming and handling of all of the data in the set so it can be combined programmatically using the proper contexts. Lastly, this also has to take up space in the overall size of the game, and it is not insignificant (and the size of games is another area of concern for players these days).

This is a perfect use case for a well-trained AI model, as it plays directly to the strengths of the technology. Of course, this is also potentially taking work away from a human. The obvious scenario here is what happens when a company that can very much afford more voice actors and sessions decides against it. If the actors are fairly compensated, and contracts are written properly to protect against using this technology for anything other than dynamic utility dialog for that project, would that change opinions? What if this is a way to simplify a complex system into something far easier to manage that allows the game to take less development time and fewer resources?

And there are other contexts to consider, such as projects that have very small budgets for dialog and can only afford to put money toward the “normal” dialog of the game. What should they do in these cases? Should the studio just accept that, since they can’t afford real humans for all of the dialog in the game, they’ll have to go without a utility dialog system?

Concept art is another case, in that not all projects can afford to maintain a staff of enough concept artists. Should these projects accept that they don’t get to have concept art because they can’t afford to hire someone or pay a contractor? What about time requirements for studios that can only afford a small concept art staff that has to juggle requests? This means that, as those artists are working on higher-priority tasks, there are other departments and systems in need of concept art to move forward. Do those departments and systems lag behind while they wait for concept artists to free up? Is there a balance where AI-generated concepts can work as a placeholder until a human artist is available?

I pass no judgment as to right or wrong about these questions, yet these are cases that do need to be included in the conversation. As an example from my past work history, I’ve worked on small teams that had no concept artists on staff, nor did they have any budget to hire or contract one at the time. Those projects were in the very early stages of creating pitch decks, so the money was nonexistent, with the intention to hire someone to fill that role once financing was secured. AI-generated concepts were used out of necessity, as concept art was needed to help pitch the project. Since there was no chance of hiring a human to do the job, should the project have gone without any concept art?

One thing is for certain: the industry is going to press forward with this technology one way or another as it discovers more frontend uses that can reduce costs. We need to have these conversations if we want to help shape this future, preferably in a way that benefits everyone.

Shovelware

80.lv: Do you think we'll have more games overall in the market? Do you feel like the times of shovelware will return?

I think it’s safe to say we are probably already in the next shovelware era. According to SteamDB, there were over 19,000 new titles released to Steam in 2025… nineteen thousand! Searching SteamDB’s sales data for 2025, it appears that the vast majority of these titles are priced at $10 or less (the search results cap out at 10,000 games priced between $0-$10, while there are 1,728 results for games priced between $11 and infinity).

This begs the question: what quality levels do these games fall into? In the original shovelware era, it was just publishers putting junk in cosmetically pretty boxes on shelves in an attempt to make easy money. Many of these products were buggy, looked nothing like the screenshots on the box, and, as a player, you felt ripped off. I think it’s safe to posit that some percentage of games released today fall into this category, but it’s a difficult thing to search for, as it’s an obscure metric to measure.

Also, with the marketplace tools at players’ disposal, it’s more difficult to release junk without it getting a bad review from someone, or Steam refunding players (or even kicking the game off the platform). So today’s shovelware era is going to look a bit different.

The democratization of game development has allowed many people to make simple games and release them to the public in earnest. Charging very little for these games sets player expectations really low, which allows for fun, short indie experiences that feel like prototype experiments. They can range anywhere from feeling like a design prototype to a nicely polished effort.

It’s very similar to what’s been happening in the music industry as recording technology has become highly affordable. There are vast amounts of new releases, ranging in quality, for all kinds of audiences. The difficulty is finding a way to sort through these experiences to give them exposure to the right kinds of audiences that enjoy them (something I’m positive AI can help with on the backend and would potentially be a welcome use of the technology).

I think the biggest question, though, is: how does this all change when AI evolves to the point of making a quality game on its own? Again, we can look to the music industry for some insight, as it is crossing the cusp of this ability at this very moment. Earlier this year, the streaming app Deezer published that an estimated 50,000 AI-created songs are uploaded to its service every day (around 34% of daily uploads).

New “bands” (complete with individual member names and personalities) that are 100% AI-generated have had songs place high on some of the listening charts on streaming services, as the public can’t tell the difference and is enjoying the music. Of course, it’s estimated that most of what is uploaded is pure slop in an attempt to get streams. Yet it’s also a matter of sheer volume, in that eventually AI will generate something that people will actively listen to and enjoy. Given how easy it is to generate new material, it can continually flood the system and drown out everything else, exacerbating the problem of helping people discover what they want to hear.

In our industry, we are still a ways off from AI being able to 100% generate a quality game that is indistinguishable from a human developer, but it will happen at some point. We’ve joked in the past about having a “make game” button, and now, ironically, its existence is starting to appear on the horizon.

Once this is achieved, I can absolutely see the very same scenario that is happening in music right now happening to our industry. Even if it took days for an AI to fully generate a game, that might as well be time-traveling speeds compared to the years it takes to make a AAA game right now. The sheer volume of games that will be created and available to play will be staggering, just as it is happening with music right now. If players respond positively and enjoy these products, it will reshape the entire industry landscape into uncharted territory.

Game Budgets

80.lv: How do you feel about the dilemma of game budgets getting higher and higher? How do you make up all those costs? Do you think games could be developed faster or more efficiently?

I feel it’s an awful cycle we’ve allowed ourselves to fall into, unfortunately. As I mentioned earlier, the requirements for a AAA game have continued to rise due to increases in the prices of games and hardware. This has stressed our already poor development practices beyond their breaking point, which has increased development costs and time.

This reduces the number of consumers for AAA games, as they look for cheaper alternatives, bringing in less revenue. This then leads to finding ways to increase the costs of games and hardware to consumers to get more revenue… repeat ad nauseam.

Jeffrey Katzenberg called it the Blockbuster Mentality in his 1991 internal memo to Disney, where this cycle leads to only big-budget titles getting released and marketed, under the flawed thinking that it’s the only way to recoup investments. His advice was to stick to the Singles and Doubles philosophy that was successful for Disney up until this point.

It’s a baseball reference in that you do not want every player to only go for home runs, as it’s too risky a strategy. You want players to go for singles and doubles primarily to get them on base, to then have a chance to score, and go for home runs when the conditions are right. I feel our industry can adopt this same thinking and still be highly successful.

So what would our industry’s version of singles and doubles be? Releasing games across a range of price points with matching development scope and costs, rather than succumbing to the Blockbuster Mentality. We can diversify our portfolio of games to cover a wider audience while still delivering AAA experiences from AAA studios.

One concept is to break games down by development times, like 3 / 5 / 7 year projects that fall into the $50 / $60 / $70 price ranges. The bulk of a portfolio should consist of 3-year projects, then a few 5-year projects, and optionally one 7-year project. This helps to spread and minimize risks, while also allowing for more opportunities for revenue generation and stability. But in order for this to work, there are still some core issues that need to be addressed in how we work.

The first thing is to fix our processes so we can be more effective at making games. This is where the concept of defining the Player Fantasy comes in, as it should be the first thing to get sorted. Having a few simple game concepts to run with is no longer a viable method for embarking on a AAA project, as we’ve seen that just having a really fun concept is not enough.

A game has to deliver a compelling Player Fantasy to an audience to be successful. So, as developers, we need to take our interesting concepts and define the Player Fantasy that will deliver them first. We can then refine this based on feedback to make sure that it is indeed compelling and is something people would want to play. This becomes the North Star to guide the team in the right direction, saving time from being wasted by exploring unnecessary ideas and decisions.

The next thing to address would be poorly organized and operating team structures. We need to learn how to foster creative environments for creative projects that discourage siloing and encourage ideas and ownership.

Understanding how people get into creative states, what causes communication breakdowns, and what ways keep people engaged, then using this information to foster an environment that works within these conditions.

The industry has acquired an over-reliance on classic production methodologies like Agile/Scrum/Waterfall, and these inadvertently create the roadblocks that lead to more wasted time and work, as they were never designed for creative projects. By their nature, these methodologies encourage siloing, as they’re intended to manage multiple disparate teams all working on different parts of a project, with the expectation that more meetings and standups will keep communication flowing.

This is in conflict with what creative projects need, hence why these methodologies tend to create strife and turmoil when used for a creative project.

Lastly, the player fantasy is what needs to be used to judge the viability of a project from the outset. If the player fantasy and its details are not compelling, then it needs to be workshopped until it is compelling, or else the game should not be considered.

Once the player fantasy is set, it must be considered in all decisions made for the project (from content to technology to marketing). This will focus the project on crafting only what is needed and help guide the team away from distractions and rabbit holes.

I believe these concepts are at the core of making games in less time and with less cost, allowing us to create games across multiple price points. It’s about providing a focus for the project that has a tangible nature to it, both in terms of the work being done and in the way teams are structured and aligned.

Reselling Games

80.lv: Why do you feel games that flop don't end up picked up by other companies and resold and repackaged? How does that work? What do you think are the factors that influence this? 

I think this is an interesting idea that should be explored. There are a lot of passionate developers out there who, I’m sure, would love to take a failed concept and see if they can make it successful, or use it as a point of reference to see the inner workings of AAA projects. Of course, there would be some challenges to doing this.

A big challenge would be getting the permission of the rights holders. Most companies don’t just give away their IPs, regardless of whether they’ve failed. Usually, it would have to be purchased from them in some capacity (outright or by acquiring a license). But this isn’t to say that it couldn’t be made to work.

One idea I could see happening is something akin to how Unreal and Unity license their technology. IP holders allow people to work on IPs they’ve approved, and once they break a threshold of income earned, it triggers some form of compensation back to the company. There are unlimited ways IP holders could get creative in this regard, creating new revenue streams and ways for experimentation.

The other big challenge is getting the assets and source code. A game like Anthem uses EA’s own internal engine, Frostbite. They use this tech for most of their internal projects, so releasing the source code might be something they flat out refuse to do.

Another issue with source code is that many engines integrate third-party tools that are specially licensed to the company. So, in the example of Anthem, even if EA were willing to release the source code, it would probably require them to renegotiate with these third-party companies and pay money to do so. Again, this isn’t to say that it would be impossible to make work, but it would have to be addressed.

Regarding game assets, something I think companies could do right now is create bundles to sell on various development marketplaces. There are a lot of fantastic ship-ready assets that I’m sure developers would love to get their hands on. This could recoup some revenue for these projects and, if priced fairly, could generate a lot of goodwill.

It could also be a way for companies to generate revenue from past projects where the assets are no longer relevant. As an example, games from the PS3 / PS4 era would be prime for this, as they’re too low-resolution by today’s standards, but indie developers and students would love to work with these ship-ready assets.

Lastly, I think to make this work, these would have to be released as-is, with no support. I remember in the early days of licensing the Quake engine, part of the deal was that there would be very little, if any, support provided by id Software.

Basically, you get a dump of the code, and it’s yours to ship a game with. You had to figure it out by digging into it to see how it worked, or talk with other developers who were licensing it to see what they’d figured out. Providing external support is quite the challenge, so removing that expectation would give companies more incentive to try this.

Future of Gaming

80.lv: Overall, what do you think would be the future for games in 2026-2030? How do you see it?

Well, as mentioned, AAA gaming has succumbed to the blockbuster mentality problem that Hollywood has fallen into. It’s pushed a lot of players into the free-to-play and indie spaces, as spending Porsche money on a game that has a good chance of being buggy, unperformant, and having a less-than-compelling player fantasy is not desirable.

Yet there are signs that a majority of players prefer single-player-focused content, specifically deep, story-driven solo adventures (based on a recent analysis and survey done by Ampere Analysis). I think that’s a great sign that there is a healthy demand for non-live-service content, but the consumer price needs to come down.

So my hope for the rest of the decade is that the industry will make an adaptation toward bringing the price of games down and focusing on compelling player fantasies. More industry execs are starting to call this out, so there does appear to be a desire for change.

Whether that’s by implementing some of the things I’ve gone over, or something completely new and untried, I strongly feel it’s the most important thing we can do as an industry. It’s the reason I wanted to go into consulting, to help studios make the adaptations that can get them to be their best.

Having worked across many studios of all types and makeups, I’ve had a lot of opportunities to see what can make a team succeed or fail. Being able to help teams by sharing this knowledge and the tools for success is something I feel compelled to do.

Benson Russell, Game Developer

Interview conducted by Kirill Tokarev