Dead Pixels pairs some of the biggest horror games with developers they think would make fantastic horror games! A Ninja Theory developed Silent Hill? How about a Naughty Dog developed Resident Evil? Read on for more!
Former Naughty Dog artist Gabriel Betancourt explains why the "sweet spot" for game teams is under 200 people and how AAA "factories" kill creativity.
There’s definitely some truth to this. When teams get too large, coordination starts to outweigh creativity—layers of approval, risk aversion, and tight deadlines can turn bold ideas into “safe” ones. Keeping a team under ~200 people sounds ideal for maintaining clear communication and a shared vision. That said, massive AAA projects also come with huge technical demands and expectations, so scaling up isn’t always avoidable. The real challenge is figuring out how to keep that small-team creativity alive inside big studio structures.
More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.
I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.
A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.
The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences (AIAS) is proud to announce that Evan Wells, former Co-President of Naughty Dog and one of the most respected studio leaders in modern game development, will be honored with a prestigious Hall of Fame Award. Wells’ induction will take place at the 29th annual D.I.C.E. Awards on February 12, 2026, at the Aria Resort in Las Vegas. Neil Druckmann, a longtime collaborator from Naughty Dog, will present Wells with his Hall of Fame Award live at the ceremony.
The founder and former president of Microsoft-owned Arkane Studios has criticised Game Pass, and claimed that it’s been “increasingly damaging” the industry.
“Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? Cough cough (Gamepass),” Colantonio wrote.
“I think Gamepass is an unsustainable model that has been increasingly damaging the industry for a decade, subsidized by MS’s ‘infinite money’, but at some point reality has to hit. I don’t think GP can co-exist with other models, they’ll either kill everyone else, or give up.”
The WolfEye Studios founder went on to state that he’s “fed up with all the bs [Xbox] fed us” around Game Pass allegedly not affecting premium game sales.
He added: “It’s a long game that involves throwing a tsunami at the entire ecosystem of the industry. Only the gamers like it because the offer is too good to be true, but eventually even gamers will hate it when they realize the effects on the games.”
Seeing what's happening to the movie industry happen to gaming is sad, greedy mega corps like MS just destroying everything they touch so a few already rich people can get even richer at the cost of everyone else is painful.
He’s actually a brave man for speaking up. This is what Google Gemini said about the job cuts that Microsoft told the ABK hearing WOULDN’T happen:
‘During the hearings and regulatory reviews for its acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Microsoft made various arguments and assurances regarding potential job losses.
Primarily, Microsoft's argument to the courts and regulators, particularly the FTC, was that the acquisition was a "vertical" merger rather than a "horizontal" one. In a vertical merger, different stages of production are combined, while a horizontal merger involves competing entities. Microsoft claimed that horizontal mergers often lead to the elimination of "redundancies" in staff, implying that a vertical merger like theirs would avoid such widespread job cuts because the companies wouldn't be directly competing in the same way. They stated that the post-merger company would be structured and operated in a way that would "readily enable Microsoft to divest any or all of the Activision businesses as robust market participants in the unlikely event that such a divestiture is ordered." This essentially meant they argued for limited control over studio operations, which would ideally mean less direct overlap leading to layoffs.
Furthermore, when mass layoffs did occur within Activision Blizzard and Xbox after the acquisition was completed, Microsoft responded to the FTC's concerns by stating that Activision had already been planning significant job cuts even as an independent company, citing broader trends in the gaming industry.’
Gamers will also hate it when they realize they’ve been walled in and would have to pay more than they used-to to play the same amount of games.
“Either kills off everything or give up”
Well, that has been MS’s goal since they entered gaming. They thought they would come in and create a monopoly. They are now trying to do that.
We been saying that for years now but Xbox fanboys refuse to accept the fact it's an amazing deal for gamers and worst for developers and publishers who depend on games sales which equals to their royalties snd bonuses
15 million players played doesn't mean much to a developer but only 2 million were sales. With all the wrong decisions MS have made with Xbox brand since 2011 till now there is no turning back. Whether we like it or not in 10 years time Xbox will be a software publisher. People have seem to forgotten the fact the last few years of Xbox 360 were really dry and people defended it saying MS are preparing for next generation yet Xbox one generation was even worst and now XSX. It has been going downhill for 15 years now
Only time Xbox was at top was with broken systems RROD and launching a year early. PS3 not only caught but surpassed Xbox 360 sales launching a full year after and at a much higher price
I hear a rumour that Microsoft is challenging a ruling that Sony will no longer be able to block GamePass on PlayStation... imagine that! All of MS games on Sony's machine for £15 month. Day in date. Super win.
That would be very very bad for many devs. Also, if Sony isn't able to make that 20-30% cut, that would then cut into their own profits. If MS is cutting so many people with GP cannibalizing on sales on Xbox, what do you think will happen to the sales they get on Playstation?
"Super win."
For who? The fired workforce or the gamers that can't play the games MS cancelled because they prioritised shutting down studios to make the rich richer?
As a Playstation gamer i absolutely DO NOT WANT GamePass. I think GamePass is a cancer in many ways and many variables, in regards to the decision making and development process of actual games.
If Sony PS doesn't want Gamepass on their consoles they have every right & there's absolutely nothing MS can do about that...lol!!
Rightfully so.
Gamepass is killing the industry and has caused significant damage to the xbox brand.
You cant justifiably argue that its a good thing for the industry with countless amounts of documented proof just this morning an article was published that first party costs are not included in gamepass costs so gamepass is not actually profitable.
The whole hey use co pilot to do your job now that everyone is fired
The constant missteps are wild
Thousands of people lost their jobs
Multiple studios shut down
Huge multi year projects cancelled
Yet this is just in the eyes of playstation gamers just get out of here with that shit man
The part that I fear most is now that they have gobbled up IP’s that were once vibrant from studios that prided themselves on “when it’s ready” release schedules, those treasured IP will begin to die off and not come back. Perfect Dark is the most recent example, but I fear the worst for other treasured franchises like Elder Scrolls. The writing was on the wall for most of us that opposed this mass consolidation. If you love gaming, and you love the IP, MS buying it all up should have been a huge red flag instead of a celebrated “win” for Green brand. MS won, gamers lost.
It’s gotten so ridiculous that MS could crap on some Xbox fans lawn and some of them would ask for more.
Any gaming access subscription system is not meant to move gaming forward. It’s only meant to change the playing field and create a constant revenue stream in order to show a semblance of success on that field.
Subscribers only see the immediate "value" (price of games) saved, and they fail to see the eventual "value" (quality of games) lost.
Worst of all, a subscriber becomes an accomplice of the system because of that perceived price value saved.
We’re so obsessed with lowering the effect on the wallet now (understandably so), that we don’t think of the eventual effect on the quality of the medium, subsequently the enjoyment and appreciation of it.
I dont agree. I think something like ea play or ps plus where the games come to the service years down the line once they've finished their primary sales part of their life is fine. It's a little bit like the movie industry where it has the box office. And if the gap between cinema release and arrival on did and digital and then eventually arrival in streaming services is large enough. Customers will still go and see it at the cinema. Infact for good films the gap can actually be short- the batman made over 700 million and it released to digital and dvd after 3 months, infact it was available digitally whikst still in the cinema. But most films cant do that. It's similar with games. They need that time available for a premium in order to be profitable. Then down the line when they are discounted heavily if they appear on a subscription service, that's fine. In some cases like a gsme like FBC: Firebreak coming day one to subscription services can be a good thing. The issue arises when its all your games and a bunch of others you buy out coming day 1 for free to the service that the economics just don't work. As Sony and Nintendo and square Enix and others all warned.
Even for older titles the same effect happens:
If consumers can find a cheaper way to consume, they will. Discounted games 6 months after launch, games going to GamePass/PS Extra...all have the same effect of making us not pay full price for the game.
Premium products aren't found in bargain bins (even after 6 months), and games should be the same. If we want a healthy industry with quality games, we're going to have to pay for it, and all these bargain bin approaches that allow us to pay less are only going to lead to more layoffs and lower quality games.
He's right.
I remember the days when Game Pass was introduced and its future features were presented. It sounded phenomenal.
At the same time though, the very first questions from many of us were:
Where do they get the promised content from? And how the hell are they planning to fund D1 releases?
Through sacrifices.
Today translated as massive consolidations/acquisitions, more than just one price hike for GP, price hikes for consoles & accessoires, thousands of cut off employees, cancelled projects, loss of creativity, damage to legacies of studios, even to their own Xbox IP.
And possibly a highly aggrevated working environment at this very moment, because noone really knows what to do.
I really wonder what news we all will be reading about Xbox at the end of this or even next year.
Gamespass is not profitable. They appear to not count the development budget of those day 1 games into the running costs of gsmes pass. If they did , I guarantee there is just no way its profitable.
Yeah.
Well, at least not with only 35 mill subs at an average price/sub of ... whatever they earn now in average.
Gamepass is profitable. Just Google it. 35 million subscribers paying 15 or 19 bucks monthly. Even if they only subscribed for one month its still making a lot of money. Is that why psplus exist? They wanted to be not profitable too?😆
@Reaper22_
I don't see sony releasing God of war or death stranding 2 or Ghost of yotel or Astro Bot day one on PS+. Considering these games are guaranteed to sell and recover the development and promotion cost within a day or two of release.
Sony's puts games on GP+ a year or more after release and once sales have died down you know once they have made all the profit from the sale of the games.
Naughty Dog developing Resident Evil... No thanks.
A good horror game, they should make Freddy vs Jason vs ash vs mike
Amnesia devs should make a Resident Evil game...
What a horrible list...
The only one I agree with is Remedy making a Fatal Frame game. Everything else is nonsensical.
This is one wish list that will never happen :L