Shawn Layden Argues Modern Games Have Outgrown Player Time And Studio Reality

Shawn Layden has returned to a familiar debate inside the games industry: how long modern games take to make, how much they cost, and how much time they demand from players. The former PlayStation president and CEO recently spoke about the issue in an interview, arguing that both development cycles and game length have drifted far beyond what is sustainable for studios and audiences alike.

Speaking on Game Rant’s Character Select, Layden framed the discussion around changing player habits and escalating production demands, thanks to GameRant. He pointed to a widening gap between how games are built and how players actually live, especially as the average age of the gaming audience continues to rise. According to Layden, the industry has been slow to adjust to that reality.

Layden’s comments arrive at a moment when blockbuster games routinely require five to seven years of development and budgets that can exceed hundreds of millions of dollars. Many of these titles also ask players to commit dozens of hours just to reach the credits. While those projects often attract attention and sales, Layden questioned whether the model can support a healthy, diverse output of games in the long term.

“We need to get back into the 2–3 year cycle for games. I think we need to get to a place where games are double-digit millions to make, not triple-digit millions. I'd like to get games that are 20 to 25 hours of gameplay.”— Shawn Layden

Layden argued that sprawling production timelines tie up talent, capital, and creative energy inside a small number of massive projects. When studios devote years to a single title, fewer teams are able to ship games at all. From his perspective, shorter cycles would allow more developers to release work, experiment with ideas, and maintain steadier careers rather than enduring prolonged development marathons.

He also addressed the issue from the player’s side. Layden suggested that the push toward ever-larger experiences made sense when gaming audiences skewed younger and had more free time. That balance has shifted. Many long-time players now juggle full-time jobs, families, and other responsibilities, limiting the hours they can realistically spend on a single game.

“Not everybody has 88 hours to play Red Dead Redemption 2.”— Shawn Layden

The remark was not a criticism of Rockstar’s success. Red Dead Redemption 2 remains one of the most commercially and critically successful games of the past decade, and Rockstar is expected to pursue a similar ambition with Grand Theft Auto 6, currently slated for 2026. Layden instead used the example to illustrate how extreme playtime expectations can exclude portions of the audience who might otherwise engage.

Layden is not alone in raising these concerns. Earlier in 2025, former Bethesda developer Will Shen made similar observations, stating that many players feel fatigued by excessively long games. Shen’s perspective carried weight, given his experience on titles like Starfield, Fallout 4, and Fallout 76, all of which emphasized scale and longevity. His comments suggested a growing internal awareness that bigger does not always mean better.

At the same time, the industry remains divided. Recent successes like Baldur’s Gate 3 demonstrate that players will still invest significant time in lengthy games when quality and depth are high. That complicates any attempt to define an ideal scope for modern releases. Layden acknowledged this tension but maintained that the current trend leaves little room for balance.

The discussion around development cycles has also intensified as studios make public commitments to faster output. CD Projekt Red recently stated that it plans to release three Witcher titles within six years, a timeline far more aggressive than its past release history. The announcement prompted skepticism from fans who questioned whether future games could maintain the scale and detail associated with the franchise.

Elsewhere, speculation around Star Wars: Fate of the Old Republic highlighted similar concerns. Some reports suggested the game might not arrive until 2030, though director Casey Hudson pushed back on that estimate. These examples reflect a broader industry struggle to reconcile ambition with feasibility, especially as technical expectations continue to rise.

Layden’s position emphasizes restraint rather than escalation. He argued that more modest budgets and runtimes could stabilize production, reduce risk, and better align games with modern player lifestyles. While the market has yet to fully pivot in that direction, his comments reflect an ongoing reassessment of how games are made and who they are ultimately for.

Whether major publishers embrace shorter, cheaper projects remains uncertain. The financial incentives behind blockbuster releases remain powerful. Still, as development costs climb and timelines stretch further, voices like Layden’s suggest that the industry may eventually be forced to reconsider how much is too much.