1. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)
    Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,151
    Country:
    United States
    Did a basic inflation calculator and $1 in 1985 is equivalent to about $2.14 in today's currency.

    EDIT: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

    Meant more so from a consumer perspective as I was assuming he was talking about how much we pay for video games. If he meant developers then my bad.
     
  2. Hyro-Sama

    Hyro-Sama I'm from the fucking future.
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,314
    Country:
    He didn't specify at first but he edited his post after.
     
  3. Hyro-Sama

    Hyro-Sama I'm from the fucking future.
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,314
    Country:
    Cloud Gaming and Online distribution.

    I doubt the game industry wants to risk raising costs too high on the consumer. Eliminating Physical Distribution would help keep costs down on the consumer end.
     
  4. Deleted_171835

    OP Deleted_171835 Newbie

    Digital distribution is never going to replace physical media entirely.
     
  5. Deleted-188346

    OP Deleted-188346 Newbie

    This is quite interesting. I mean, there was always going to be a wall which developers would hit in regards to the costs, complexity, and scope of projects. From the sounds of it, it might be coming soon.

    There's only so much that the average development studio can create within their budgets, team size, average team skill, and time allocated.

    Soon we may see the higher tier video games, on average, start to become relatively standardised in terms of graphics, with a few exceptions given by very large development studios with very huge budgets. Don't confuse this with the current situation, in which we are being held back by the aging hardware of the 360 and PS3 though.
     
  6. Gahars

    Gahars Bakayaro Banzai
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    10,254
    Country:
    United States
    To be fair, that isn't so large.

    Not to say that $60 million dollars is not a big chunk of change, of course, but compare that to the budgets of The Avengers, Skyfall, or The Dark Knight Rises... and then look at how well the game sold. It's a big investment, but as long as the payoff remains so great, the big publishers will continue to see it as worthwhile.

    I don't want game development costs to spiral out of control, but I don't think rising costs are necessarily awful, either. Just like with film, I think there's enough room in the market for the big-budget blockbusters, smaller releases, and indie efforts.
     
  7. Qtis

    Qtis Grey Knight Inquisitor
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,817
    Country:
    Antarctica
    Regardless of dev costs, I'd like to see some huge games like Baldur's Gate get released (actually a turn based RPG would be awesome in general!) for newer consoles. As games make more and more money (the industry is growing quite quickly, though mainly the thanks goes to mobile gaming) hopefully we'll see a few new game types or crossovers pop up. Fallout 3 was interesting for a change :)
     
  8. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,448
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Given it alternates between two companies now surely the answer is four companies.

    It seems others are heading down the same path as me though I wish to go none the less.

    I have very serious issues with "games cost more to develop" statements- I will certainly grant you inflation and wages increases (either in general or to hire people with the necessary skills at the levels you might want) but the full statement would surely be something like "If we are going to push the hardware to the limits (with the resulting need for a few different types of texture artists where before there might have only been a 3d modeller) then it will cost more to develop". Pushing things to the limits is not required and given developers are now pushing hardware to the limits with the resulting need for high end developers to do it (granted I like optimised code an awful lot but I can agree "just get some more power" is an attractive model).

    Furthermore the "it took..." statement.... logical fallacy much? Worse is the company themselves build and sell game engines so they probably know exactly how much initial engine development costs.
     
    shakirmoledina likes this.
  9. CCNaru

    CCNaru Warn-free Since 2005
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    788
    Country:
    United States
    glorious 2d master-race and jrpg animu returning
     
    shakirmoledina likes this.
  10. shakirmoledina

    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    6,613
    Country:
    Tanzania
    I think the aims are lost these days. we had great games before that focused on gameplay over graphics but now that seems to be changing.
    worse than graphics conc v gameplay conc is that now games are getting released faster and with more bugs. check out black ops 2 for example. even skidrow couldn't do it.

    we had games like Caesar 3 that ran on a pc with NO graphics drivers and yet its my fav city building game. pes was a master piece in the early days of ps2 then has become just milking.
    I think the devs should rethink how they develop games and make it easier for themselves to do so rather than put more burden on themselves.
    Computers are there to make life easier and automatic and not harder and more detailed through manual work.
     
  11. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)
    Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,151
    Country:
    United States
    I want to say that the increasing cost of games is not just graphics. Nowadays games are almost held to a similar standard of movies.

    Take a game like Super Mario Bros. and think what you needed on that team. People for graphics, people for level design, people for music and SFX. Can't think of much else there.

    Now take a game like Mass Effect. What do you need for that? Writers, damn talented professional writers for that matter, not to mention you have to writer for three possible outcomes in many situations. A movie is about 2 hours of storytelling roughly, a game like Mass Effect can be upwards of 20+ hours of storytelling. You need voice actors. Most of the people you hire are professionals who do this for a living, you can't pay Joe Schmo off the street to voice Shepard for $100. You need larger music teams, even entire orchestras for the soundtrack, or you need to pay to license music (M4 Part II has been around before the first Mass Effect and was done by Faunts). Of course there's graphics too, which are definitely more complicated than Super Mario Bros. blocks. It's not just a few pixels, it's entire 3D models, large and diverse 3D environments, weapons, abilities, animations, and physics.

    To assume that game costs are rising became "omigod people only care about graphics" is a poor assumption. Game costs are rising because game development is growing. You look at a AAA game nowadays and it has everything going for it. A game like Mass Effect has large amounts of storytelling, gameplay, solid graphics (first game is a bit dated looking plus all the graphical glitches, texture pop-ins, and slowdowns don't help but the third game is excellent looking), voice acting, well composed music. You take away a lot of these things and you basically get an indie game.

    There were tons of bugs back in the day too. At least nowadays bugs can be patched. Imagine back in the day, buying an awesome looking game, only for it to be a buggy mess. When you do that today, you go "That sucks" and wait a few days for a patch to fix it all. Back then, too fucking bad.

    Plus I can go on and on about how graphics are important to games but I've explained this a few times. In short, graphics add a level of immersion and character to a game that can, at times, overshadow even the gameplay and make a game worth playing.
     
  12. Deleted_171835

    OP Deleted_171835 Newbie

    Halo is an established franchise, though. Not every game is going to be making that much dough.

    With incredibly high development costs, publishers will be more hesitant of taking risks. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that we're likely to see more sequels and iterations in existing franchise next gen.
     
  13. BORTZ

    BORTZ The Amazing
    Supervisor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,817
    Country:
    United States

    I wanted them... :D
     
    Hadrian likes this.
  14. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)
    Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,151
    Country:
    United States
    But if we're talking about big games like Call of Duty, Halo, Mass Effect, Grand Theft Auto, games like that will almost always turn a profit (a sizable one at that).

    This is a creeping issue in gaming, but digital distribution exists. You can make a game for digital distribution for a fraction of the cost and without the stigma attached to retail games. I mean if you look at Steam, games of all quality and tier are sold on an equal plane. I know you earlier stated "Digital distribution is never going to replace physical media entirely" but I really think it will. The PC is already digital by a large majority, we've already seen several successful digital-only platforms (smartphones of all kinds), and companies are basically forced at this point to offer it (Sony has been trying to play both digital and physical equally, Nintendo eventually added digital games to the eShop from retail, rumors swirl that next gen consoles will be digital only, etc).

    BUT I DIGRESS.

    There will always be an area for AAA games and for lower cost games. The issue is a lack of a middle ground between the two but that seems to be where Steam has struck gold.
     
  15. naved.islam14

    naved.islam14 Gbatemp's Official Dark Knight™
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Country:
    I'm sure people will be paid more too.
     
  16. BORTZ

    BORTZ The Amazing
    Supervisor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,817
    Country:
    United States
    I wonder if the xbox would have made it out of generation 6 if it hadnt been for Halo.
     
  17. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)
    Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,151
    Country:
    United States
    Gears of War helped too.
     
  18. BORTZ

    BORTZ The Amazing
    Supervisor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,817
    Country:
    United States
    Was the first gears for the first xbox??
     
  19. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)
    Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,151
    Country:
    United States
    My bad, I thought you were referring to the Xbox 360, I misread.

    Well, there was, um, Fable? Also Xbox Live was wildly better and much more integrated than the competition. I mean Microsoft really started gearing online gaming as an essential component to console gaming with Xbox Live and the original Xbox.

    Also Battlefront II (it was on the PS2 too but it was the second most popular original Xbox Live game until the original Xbox was cancelled).
     
    BortzANATOR likes this.
  20. Rydian

    Rydian Resident Furvert™
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    27,880
    Country:
    United States
    The concern with constantly grabbing big-name people for voices is just another example studios erroneously thinking they NEED to spend big bucks to make a return.

    The Portal series used an opera singer for Glados, for crying out loud... and people fucking LOVE it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - expects, double, costs