http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/3185663.stm
When the next generation of consoles hit, the price for developing the average game will be around $30M therefore independent designers will no longer be able to exist.
I don't agree with this, I think that's how companies like EA and Nintendo want to see it happen. I don't even seeing them dropping that much on every game. A couple of flops could kill a company when you also consider the advertising dollars behind each game. I think that the gaming business will resemble the movie business. A few big-budget ventures which innovate and then a whole lotta games running on the lastest Heretic engine or stock graphics. There should still be room for good independent efforts, just as there is in the movie business.
0
Game Development Prices to Skyrocket
Started by NovaXpress, Aug 28 2003 1:02 PM
10 replies to this topic
#1 OFFLINE
NovaXpress
-
-
- 10,745 posts
Skeet Shooter
- Still Smokin'
- Location:Dark Side of the Moon
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:02 PM
#2 OFFLINE
Inky
-
-
- 23,582 posts
Assistant head peon
- I be regular, bitches!
- Location:The Ghost Box
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:35 PM
NovaXpress said:
http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/3185663.stm
When the next generation of consoles hit, the price for developing the average game will be around $30M therefore independent designers will no longer be able to exist.
I don't agree with this, I think that's how companies like EA and Nintendo want to see it happen. I don't even seeing them dropping that much on every game. A couple of flops could kill a company when you also consider the advertising dollars behind each game. I think that the gaming business will resemble the movie business. A few big-budget ventures which innovate and then a whole lotta games running on the lastest Heretic engine or stock graphics. There should still be room for good independent efforts, just as there is in the movie business.
When the next generation of consoles hit, the price for developing the average game will be around $30M therefore independent designers will no longer be able to exist.
I don't agree with this, I think that's how companies like EA and Nintendo want to see it happen. I don't even seeing them dropping that much on every game. A couple of flops could kill a company when you also consider the advertising dollars behind each game. I think that the gaming business will resemble the movie business. A few big-budget ventures which innovate and then a whole lotta games running on the lastest Heretic engine or stock graphics. There should still be room for good independent efforts, just as there is in the movie business.
That's the nice thing about classic systems. Low overhead.
And really, anyone could THEORETICALLY program the Xbox.
#3 OFFLINE
Jetboot Jack
-
-
- 1,447 posts
Stargunner
- A W A Y
- Location:Disconnected
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:49 PM
Well I'd agree with Jez and the rest of the industry on this one...
The new consoles have SO much power that to create compelling content takes so many more people, its not enough to be an artist -- you can be a modeller, a rigger, a lighter, a texture artist, an animator, an environmental builder etc etc...
The reason for so many people is that each specialized job is now full time, and therfore its so time consuming to create visuals the public expects that the team size has to mushroom to bring the public what they think the next round of hardware can deliver...
sTeVE
The new consoles have SO much power that to create compelling content takes so many more people, its not enough to be an artist -- you can be a modeller, a rigger, a lighter, a texture artist, an animator, an environmental builder etc etc...
The reason for so many people is that each specialized job is now full time, and therfore its so time consuming to create visuals the public expects that the team size has to mushroom to bring the public what they think the next round of hardware can deliver...
sTeVE
#4 OFFLINE
NovaXpress
-
-
- 10,745 posts
Skeet Shooter
- Still Smokin'
- Location:Dark Side of the Moon
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:10 PM
I'm thinking that we might end up with just four or five engines which are modified by all the companies. Not too far from what is happening now.
It is certainly possible to make lower-budget games, but the visuals will reflect it and as they say in the article, people are gonna expect big things from their PS3 games.
It is certainly possible to make lower-budget games, but the visuals will reflect it and as they say in the article, people are gonna expect big things from their PS3 games.
#5 OFFLINE
Ze_ro
-
-
- 8,511 posts
Quadrunner
- Welcome Back!
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:16 PM
Well this sucks... I guess we'll be forced to sit through all the clone games that Capcom, Activision, etc seem content on making.
The only good thing I can see coming from this would be that companies will put a lot of thought into a game before they bother with it. Maybe some of the crappier stuff won't make it out the door. Unfortunately, most of the innovative (and financially risky) stuff probably won't make it out either.
--Zero
The only good thing I can see coming from this would be that companies will put a lot of thought into a game before they bother with it. Maybe some of the crappier stuff won't make it out the door. Unfortunately, most of the innovative (and financially risky) stuff probably won't make it out either.
--Zero
#6 OFFLINE
liveinabin
-
-
- 6,430 posts
Painty Man!
- Location:The Viking bit of England
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:34 PM
I think as consoles get more advanced, so will the tools available to create the game worlds - and developers are going to flock to whichever console company makes life easiest for them (less man hours - less dev. cost).
For the most part, I think a lot of the 'next-gen' games will be the same as we have now, with fancier lighting, texturing and higher resoultions - these wouldn't really take any longer or cost any more than games do now - it's just better hardware with the same poly data (kind of).
What I think we will see is more difference between first and third party games, this could really be the undoing of Nintendo, who really don't need that gap widening any more than it is now.
For the most part, I think a lot of the 'next-gen' games will be the same as we have now, with fancier lighting, texturing and higher resoultions - these wouldn't really take any longer or cost any more than games do now - it's just better hardware with the same poly data (kind of).
What I think we will see is more difference between first and third party games, this could really be the undoing of Nintendo, who really don't need that gap widening any more than it is now.
#7 OFFLINE
Kyo
-
-
- 61 posts
Star Raider
- Location:NYC
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:34 PM
i really dont believe that's true. Console hardware makers like Sony, Nintendo,and Microsoft would want to keep pricing on development of next gen hardware down.it's all about being cost effective while using the most powerful components.
#8 OFFLINE
chrisbid
-
-
- 5,388 posts
Quadrunner
- Location:Columbus Ohio
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:35 PM
if thats true, then why is the PS2 (the most difficult of the three to develop for) the most popular console?
Its all going to lead to another downturn in the industry. I doubt well see a full blown crash like we did in 1984, but the industry cant keep growing at its current pace.
Its all going to lead to another downturn in the industry. I doubt well see a full blown crash like we did in 1984, but the industry cant keep growing at its current pace.
#9 OFFLINE
Xot
-
-
- 4,559 posts
River Patroller
- Because I'm -- A NINJA!!
- Location:Wayreth, Krynn
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:50 PM
chrisbid said:
if thats true, then why is the PS2 (the most difficult of the three to develop for) the most popular console?
Its all going to lead to another downturn in the industry. I doubt well see a full blown crash like we did in 1984, but the industry cant keep growing at its current pace.
Its all going to lead to another downturn in the industry. I doubt well see a full blown crash like we did in 1984, but the industry cant keep growing at its current pace.
85% market share, duh.
Seriously, look at the Saturn/PSX battle. The Saturn was notoriously hard to program for and as a result had a fraction of the library PS did even before it was snuffed out.
#10 OFFLINE
chrisbid
-
-
- 5,388 posts
Quadrunner
- Location:Columbus Ohio
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:52 PM
exactly my point, it doesnt matter how difficult it is to program for a console, the Dreamcast was supposed to be easy, and it died, and the xbox is supposed to be easy, and its not burning down any sales charts
#11 OFFLINE
JB
-
-
- 9,211 posts
Quadrunner
- With Stereo-Of-The-Art-Sound
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:52 PM
Xot said:
chrisbid said:
if thats true, then why is the PS2 (the most difficult of the three to develop for) the most popular console?
Its all going to lead to another downturn in the industry. I doubt well see a full blown crash like we did in 1984, but the industry cant keep growing at its current pace.
Its all going to lead to another downturn in the industry. I doubt well see a full blown crash like we did in 1984, but the industry cant keep growing at its current pace.
85% market share, duh.
Seriously, look at the Saturn/PSX battle. The Saturn was notoriously hard to program for and as a result had a fraction of the library PS did even before it was snuffed out.And the Saturn's failure was only state-side. In Japan it was still going strong right up untill Sega killed it so they could focus on the Dreamcast.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
