The Independent AAA Proposition

10 Aug The Independent AAA Proposition

At this year’s GDC Europe Tameem (NT co-founder and Chief Creative Ninja) gave a talk entitled The Independent AAA Proposition.  Tameem’s full presentation and talk notes are below:


Over the last 14 years Ninja Theory have delivered award winning games for consoles under the AAA publishing model.  From Kung Fu Chaos on Xbox which started as a three-person team working from a spare bedroom to Heavenly Sword, Enslaved Odyssey to the West and DmC: Devil May Cry on Xbox 360 and PS3, Ninja Theory has witnessed the AAA business grow and the impact it has had on both creativity and business.

The talk will detail the 14 year journey of Ninja Theory, the sacrifices and concessions made to stay in the game.  Footage of unreleased games, the reason why they didn’t come to market, and the specific sales related decisions that led to their demise will be detailed.  It will include the unrealised sequel to Kung Fu Chaos, footage of an as yet undisclosed next generation game, and various other pitches that we had to put on ice or walk away from.

For a traditionally AAA developer like Ninja, it may be possible to break the cycle of inevitability of rising budgets, sales-driven design and the wallet-busting price of entry of AAA that limits diversity, innovation and makes IP ownership all but impossible for creators.

With the next generation consoles arriving at one end, just as mobile and indie games have taken hold at the other, perhaps there is room for a third way, to turn the “middle”, where many a good studio has disappeared, into an opportunity to redefine gaming: the Independent AAA game.

What is the Independent AAA game? It is about creating, funding and owning IP of AAA quality but with the more focused game design, lower price point and open development process that defines indie games.  It’s about taking creative risks and making spectacular, exciting and unique game experiences that can compete with AAA and engages fans directly.

This talk is a candid reveal of the realities of making games in the AAA space and will be of interest to indies who are dreaming big, AAA devs who are dreaming of independence and the middle-tier who find themselves at a crossroads.


Hello my name is Tameem Antoniades, Chief Creative Ninja and co-founder of Ninja Theory.  Thank you for attending.

In case you aren’t familiar with Ninja Theory, here is a short video that shows what we do:


Ninja Theory has been around for 14 years now and I’ve been making games for 19, which in game development terms is a lifetime, so I’d like to share with you insights and trends that we have faced along the way.

History tends to repeat itself, markets roll in cycles, and patterns of behaviour repeat themselves. The better we are at seeing these patterns, the more likely we are to break the negative ones and adapt to new ones.

So as we are neck deep into yet another major gaming transition, it felt like a good time to take stock of where we came from, see where we are heading and see if we can steer ourselves into a better future.


I feel very lucky to be born at the right time to see gaming evolve from it’s simple beginnings to now.  With each leap in generation, game genres die out, new ones are invented, gaming interfaces change, payment models change radically, companies go bust, new ones emerge, people leave the games industry and new blood joins.  Fear, change and excitement is part of the natural life cycle of gaming.

What is unusual is just how long and steady the last few generations has been from PS1 to PS3. In that time, the retail model has dominated with a high fixed pricing model forcing games to compete on size and features becoming what is now known as AAA.

But now, we are bang in the midst of an even bigger transition. It’s too broad to neatly classify like the arcade/home or 2D/3D transitions. It involves, apps, steam, indie, free to play, social gaming, games as service and cloud gaming. I would say it all sits under the umbrella of a “digital” transition.

Digital has and will continue to raze through entire traditionally physical industries, music, movies, books and so on. We have a good few years of seismic upheaval to get through as we transition fully to digital in games but it is and will continue to happen.


There is a space I want us to fill.  Common wisdom says that this space doesn’t exist.  I’m calling this space Independent AAA.

It’s about self-publishing AAA-quality games that are narrower in focus, selling them for a fair price and connecting to your fans in a meaningful way.  It’s a place for developers like us who don’t fit comfortably in the mega-budget AAA space but who are not true indie developers.

I believe that we need this space to be filled if we want the future of gaming, particularly on consoles, to be diverse and creative for both developers and gamers. I will be speaking from a console developers’ perspective because that it is where our history and heritage lies.


A note on terminology.  I talked to Lorne Lanning from Oddworld about this space between AAA and Indie earlier this year at GDC in San Francisco.  He used the phrase “AAA Indie”.  I am using the more neutral “Independent AAA” because there is a particular ethos, culture and energy that surrounds the word “Indie” that I admire but don’t feel like I’ve earned.

As for Lorne, he’s put his money where his mouth is and launched a high quality digital game for the price of a DVD movie.  It’s a good example of what AAA indie is about. It would be good for all of us if he is successful. I wish him and his team the best.


I want to share as much as I can without breaking NDA’s and be respectful of partners that have supported us over the years. After all without them, we wouldn’t be around.  For that I am appreciative. Being in the games industry for 20 years means that I am the establishment, whether I like the sound of that or not, and want to make better games in a better environment for everyone: gamers, devs and publishers.

My intentions here is educational, to put forward my experience and share my observations through examples.
“To see with eyes unclouded by hate”


So in this spirit,I will be revealing footage and documentation of some of our projects that didn’t make it. Some of  these will be made available online to everyone next week. We gladly share it with you in the hope that it will be interesting, useful or educational.

This talk will describe the changes brought about by the rise of AAA gaming using our history as an illustration. I hope this talk will be interesting for AAA developers looking for change, for indie’s who are looking up to AAA, and to publishers who are considering their place in the digital publishing world.


I was employed as a programmer and designer when I and two of my colleagues, Nina Kristensen and Mike Ball set up Just Add Monsters with £3000 in savings and not a lot else.

We had little money, no equipment, no code, and no office, just a spare bedroom. I had a passion for Kung Fu and had designed a multiplayer brawler called Kung Fu Chaos, something smallish to get us started.

We set about looking for investment but no one was interested in that. Instead, 3 game companies, all developers wanted to buy us outright.  Having run out of savings, we sold to Argonaut 6 months after founding.

With Argonaut’s backing we bought computers, hired staff, and moved into a little office and prototyped a little gameplay demo. We signed the game to Microsoft Games Studios on who were looking to make a mark in the console space with the Xbox.

We grew from 3 to around 20 at full production. We were owned by Argonaut, but operating independently, in a small office in Cambridge.


The publishing team we worked with was brilliant and supportive. They helped us out in every area of production to create a cool first game that we still get love for.

As the game hit the shelves, there were no ads, no support and the game tanked at retail.  I was amazed that an organisation would invest so much in a game and then send it out to die. It seemed like such a waste of money.  But the logic behind this was very simple:

An organisation with a marketing budget will back the games that give a better return on the investment. If game A is projected to make a better return per marketing dollar than game B, then game A will likely receive ALL of the funding.


But before Kung Fu Chaos hit the shelves we were already working on a sequel.

During development, it was clear that some players didn’t take to the cartoon style characters so we started heading towards a slightly more mature style for the game. There was an expectation from publishers that audiences wanted more realism in their games.

We thought that delivering Kung Fu Chaos on time and on budget would mean that our relationship would continue.  It didn’t. No sales. No sequel.  This was something that we learned again and again, on subsequent games, that no matter how good a working relationship is, the only thing that counts at the end of the day is the profit and loss.

And because the Kung Fu Chaos IP was owned by our publisher, and all the code was Xbox exclusive we couldn’t take the sequel anywhere else. We had to start from scratch. We didn’t have the financial leverage to own the IP and take it forward so it was effectively dead.

It is simply the model that AAA operates in.  The handful of developers that have stand-out hits are able to break this model by funding their own game and keeping their IP but the vast majority were and still are in the same boat.

To this day, if we could work on a sequel, we would.


We thought about creating a similarly themed new IP and called this game Kung Fu Story.

We created this pre-vis video to show how it would look and play.



But the arms race towards higher budgets and more realism was in full swing. A stylised game like Kung Fu Chaos was not appealing to publishers. Kung Fu Story was in the same boat. Back then a game called Brute Force was getting the big push.

Given a £40 game, why would anyone buy a kung fu comedy game over a high budget game with sexy realistic graphics? I can’t say that I agree with this thinking but I do understand it – it’s much harder to find a unique style than to pursue realism.  Publishers do feel realism means less risk so we have to go with the flow.

There was no room for Kung Fu Story.


The doggedly fixed price of retail which continues to this day results in an arms race where bigger bets must be made alongside lower creative risks. Competition focuses on size and feature lists pushing budgets up to unimagined levels. We’re in a world where for some games, selling less than 5m is deemed a failure.

This is the Go Big or Go Home pattern that has continued through to this day in AAA.

As creative innovation and competition goes down you start to see fewer bigger games, many of which seem quite similar to each other. Hence the observation made by some: “Everything’s Uncharted”

This list is everything a modern AAA game must have in terms of feature set to be considered viable.  AAA is starting to look more like Tesco superstores:  big, homogeneous, high volume, expensive, and not necessarily better quality than diverse local markets. This is a creatively destructive force that has sidelined entire genres of gaming as the demand for higher budgets and more predictable sales took hold. It has sunk many creative teams and kept many games away from players that couldn’t compete with the blockbusters simply because they couldn’t justify the retail price tag.


Many have packed it in and started over in indie gaming, apps, or other areas.  Others have been absorbed into publishers who are not willing to bet $100m+ on external game developers. Most have simply gone bust because they cannot attract funding to compete with huge teams.

This isn’t “survival of the fittest”. Evolution has nothing to do with being “fitter” or “better” and everything to do with being more adaptive to a changing environment.

While people in these studios often move on to form new ones, talented teams are broken up forever, and years of knowledge in AAA game making is thrown out as developers switch industries.

How have we survived? We focus on quality, stay on budget, ship on time but then, so have many others on this list. it comes down to this: we have been lucky.


Given the push towards realism and going big, Kung Fu Story was looking shaky.  So we doubled down and bet on going big.

We would create a new IP for next gen platforms, then not even on anyone’s radar, and create something with outstandingly high production values that, unlike Kung Fu Chaos, would be difficult to ignore. So Kung Fu Story evolved into Heavenly Sword.  This is the first concept video we made, a few months after Kung Fu Story.


We prototyped the game on PC guessing at the capabilities of the then unannounced Xbox 360 and PS3 which were about 3 years away.

We had no idea what a next-gen game was supposed to look like so we really were shooting big. This is an early prototype. Even back then we had full scene shadowing, high dynamic range lighting, realtime time of day changes, armies of thousands in realtime, time-dilation effects and physics.

Publishers were very interested as we ticked all their GOBIGGOHOME boxes. But none would bite because they knew something we weren’t aware of: Argonaut our parent company was in trouble.


We got a call. Argonaut is entering administration. Under the same pressures, the biggest developer in the UK could not sign their games to publishers.As they were our parent company, we were told we would be shut down in two weeks time.

We needed to find cash fast. In the end we remortgaged our houses and Jez, the CEO of Argonaut invested some money.  We had enough to buy back the company from the administrators and enough cash for 3 months.

We returned to publishers but this time there was a different problem. No one believed we could pull it off. At the time the thinking was that only high end PC developers would be able to cope with next gen technology. In the words of one of the biggest publishers, “We’ve had 50 people working on next gen tech for two years. What makes you think you can compete?”.

It’s a pattern that was going to repeat over at the start of every new hardware generation.  Publishers button down, focus on internal development, stating that independent devs don’t stand a chance.  This is the most dangerous time to be independent. It invariably turns out to be untrue.


In the end, within days of running out of money we signed to Sony who were by now aggressively betting on PS3 content. But our desperate position left us weak.  We signed the IP rights away, the technology away and became an exclusive Sony developer.  Sony saved our skin for which we are grateful to this day but we no longer owned our creative output and effectively lost our independence.

We achieved many things to be proud of some of