Cost of Game Development is 'Crazy' Says EA 321
GamesIndustry.biz has the word from Alan Tascan, general manager of EA's Montreal studio, who has gone on record saying that development costs are 'crazy' in this next-gen world. From the article: "When asked whether he'd agree that it's larger companies like EA which are driving bigger game budgets, Tascan replied, 'I think a lot of [other companies] are spending even more money. It's people who want that, it's not EA per se ... I said to some of the guys here, "The gamer is not buying lines of code; you have to promise him enough entertainment for him to put his hand in his pocket and buy the game." It's a lot of money, so you need to give him a show, and we're just here to deliver the show.'"
Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been bothering me for a while. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should be focusing on making the games fun to play, instead of entertaining to watch?
Blah (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a cost for HD games, and it isn't cheap. However, I think EA is calling sour grapes because companies like Capcom, Team Ninja and Square-Enix are able to make games that are stunning, fun, and wildly profitable while EA doesn't make the grade in any of those.
The sad truth of Spore is that it will be a great game, but in so being it will allow EA to continue their overbloated and inefficient methods.
Says who? (Score:3, Insightful)
EA might just be whining because they have to start from somewhere near scratch with a new architecture like the CELL within the PS3 (which unlike the Wii is not just an update of a former system); something that more respectable developers do for any new game that tries to make a new idea become reality.
EA also has more fixed costs in the licensing department, I guess. It won't be so cheap incorporating all those sports celebrities, real team & player names, car brands and technical specs and what have you. But that's up to their own conceptual decision, crazy as it may be.
If I want a show... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I pay for gaming entertainment, I want a game, something fun. This is why I bought a Wii. Companys can focus on the fun factor and not have to blow me away with showy graphics.
Re:This has been bothering me for a while. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
So where does the money actually go?
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Being a Spelling Nazi (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you'll find per se is Latin :-)
Re:How does this compare to movies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:2, Insightful)
and even then the next-gen consoles are 'loss leaders'.
Games have always been hard to produce the only difference between then and now is that they have more pixels to work with which means more graphics to create, not necessarily more gameplay. Gamers, in general, have been spoiled by the great control of games like 'Halo' and 'God of War' and the length of games like 'DeusEx', I think that this is just EA crying about how difficult it is to compete in the cutthroat industry that they have a firm grasp on.
How many times do we have to hear it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If I want a show... (Score:2, Insightful)
A gaming console is a specific computer made for the sole purpose of playing games / enjoying yourself. To that end, they should provide things that a standard PC is not really made to do, which is why I like the Wii. Yes, you can make the Wiimote work on a PC, but no game developer is going to try and market a PC game towards that. By creating one standard and interactive device for gamers to play with, Nintendo has given the Wii a good amount of backing for developers to market to. To that end, I see Nintendo doing well with the Wii.
Sony and Microsoft have a battle ahead of themselves, with each other. Both offer a system with some online capabilities, and similar game sets. The problem with both is that they don't really offer anything that a standard PC can't offer. People have had USB controllers for a long time, and have played games with them. The only real thing they offer is the online marketplace / community, but that can be somewhat easily done on a PC. What the two companies need to realize is that the 'hardcore' games that take a ton of hours to complete would be best suited for a PC anyway. On a PC you can run Ventrilo, Winamp, AIM, a web-browser, etc, all at the same time you play. That way, you can have you fun in the game, and add whatever else on top of it you want.
Because they are similar, and in my opinion in trouble, Microsoft and Sony have some work ahead of them. I feel that if Microsoft wants to continue to do well into the future, they would do best to shift to the PC gaming market. They already have an operating system they could work with, it just seems to make sense. I think if they continue as they currently have, they will do alright in the next gen (after 360), but die after that.
I think Sony will be too stubborn to change gears and will continue to try and push more hardware and expense into a box that people won't find fun. I believe that they might try to make a PS4 eventually, but it will fail miserably.
If either company tries to mimic Nintendo and make the console more interactive and offer more than a PC can, they will find a hard road. Nintendo already has the marketplace for that. It is much like the iPod and the Zune. The Zune may offer the same things as the iPod, plus a little bit, but it is just too late.
If game developers would simply make fun and interactive console games for things like the Wii, I think they would see the best success. If you want to develop a blockbuster of a game/movie, it would be best marketed to a PC, because you have a bigger audience, and less proprietary garbage to deal with.
Sorry to make it so long, but it is hard to show the picture I see with only part of it.
Hmmm... I wonder if buying up all the rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the physics model for Pong wasn't really all that different than that of, say, Quake 4? The greater complexity and raw power of more modern systems allow for more expansive gameplay beyond the pushing of pixels and shaders. The AI, the level of interaction with the environment, and the immersive qualities of the audio fields are only a few of the ways that games have evolved since the offerings available during my childhood.
Relegating the changes to mere visual aesthetic modifications completely discounts the capabilities that the technology allows as well as the pure academic research that led to each of these advances. From a tech-geek standpoint, your assertion is almost offensive.
Re:define 'crazy' (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How does this compare to movies. (Score:3, Insightful)
A blockbuster film has a cinema run, then a PPV TV run, then a DVD run, then a network TV run and a really big movie will have tickover DVD sales for many years and will continue to sell at a reasonable trickle on Hd-DVD and then whatever future formats we have. For instance, Blade Runner is STILL selling on DVD now, 20 years after release, it's still making money. The original dev costs of these films when moved to HD-DVD from DVD will be minimal.
A game comes out, it sells for a month and largely dissapears completely except for a possible blip when reduced in price (which is something movies will get anyway). At best 5 years after the game release there's a new format and making a proper version for that will be near to or more expensive than the original game dev was.
So comparing budgets to prices to "unit sales" isn't terribly helpful.
Re:Meh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some Groundbreaking EA games (Score:4, Insightful)
Archon - Free Fall Associates
M.U.L.E - Ozark_Softscape
The Bard's Tale - Interplay
Starflight - Binary Systems
Notice a pattern? Not a single one of those games was developed by EA. EA just distributed it. That would be like giving RCA credit for Elvis Presley's singing. Which was the grandparent's point, as far as developers go they're not looking to be innovative or original. They're aiming squarely at the frat boy market. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't come back and cry to us later about how tough the market you're in is.
The fact they've published some other people's work that was innovative really doesn't make up for their Cronus like approach to the studios they work with in recent years...
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a pretty serious oversimplification. EA bought Maxis, and then tried to kill The Sims. Any "highly experimental" game that comes out of EA is an accident, not an experiment.
Re:Meh. (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize this attitude is antithetical to their whining about the conditions of the market? Oh noes! Making money has gotten hard now that our competition is emulating our successful strategy! It's not fair!
I say pile on the cheap-shots. Only undeserving douchebags employ loser-talk while they're fucking the prom queen.
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does Dead Rising allow the same richness of interaction with the environment that any Infocom text adventure did?
Great advancements are being made in gameplay today (the Wii controller being a very visible example among many), but there's a lot of rehashed shiny same-old as well. Sort of like how there are some great films being made today, but a surprising number of outright remakes of old B-movies with better VFX.
Re:Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually mine was the right oversimplification, and your is putting a human face on a corporation, which we know it's not.
The momet Maxis was purchased by EA, it's part of EA corporation and that's all. From that point on, it's business as usual. If EA's strategy is wrong, they won't profit, won't be on the market. They don't cut strange deals on blank CD media, consoles and don't sue 80 year old grandmas for pirating Need for Speed.
They profit in only one way: people like and buy their games.
Re:Nintendo (Score:2, Insightful)
Bring someone up on multi-core programming and I'd bet they'd find programming for a single core a bitch too.
I'm going to disagree with you there. They might find it a bit limiting but I doubt they'd complain too much. First, the simplicity of one core makes it far simpler to code for one core - there are many issues you just don't need to worry about. Second, there really isn't anyone whose being "brought up" on multi-core programming. Most developers are trained on single core (if they learn anything about processor programming at all) and it's only those interested in distributed programming and the like that would move to multi-core. You can't crawl before you walk, or something like that.
Here's a nutty idea: invest in fun not licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
How much money does it actually cost to develop a fun game? Contrast that with costs of licensing movie characters or (worse) putting your entire production staff on the task of reworking animations for yet another Madden sequel. I'd argue that the real cost here is risk. Rather than assemble a number of small teams to make a bizarre game that could turn into a franchise, EA opts (more and more often) to play it safe by spending scads of cash on a sure thing.
Then again, maybe he's pining for the old days when he could order up a cash cow sequel much cheaper.
Either way, the next time you throw down your controler in dusgust at that $50 worth of deja vu you just purchased, we have only ourselves to blame.
Re:ea sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I am having trouble believing that you are not some sort of shill for EA.
I didnt actually play the games you mentioned.
Thanks for the input. I can tell this is a fairly insightful set of remarks... You never played the games I mention but you know they have to suck (and I do to) simply because they're from EA? Fantastic. BTW: I never played most of the games you mentioned either, but I know enough to hold my tongue about making broad statements about an entire company because I like a few of their products. I did play the demo for BF2 and found it to be only moderately entertaining. I never had any of the problems you describe, but it was only a demo.
I don't play sports games but I have heard them roundly condemed by everyone who does.
Yeah, I hear this about Maden all the time... That's how it manages to remain one of the biggest selling game titles of all time, because the same people ("everyone" according to you) who hates the game buys it when the new year's version comes out. Again, I've never played the game.
Thanks for the rant and the insults.
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:1, Insightful)
"take picture of zombies" versus running and jumping around the environment dodging enemies to get the exact right shot of a zombie horde massacring a civilian before they finish ripping limbs off and turn on you. It's clearly more complex gameplay.
I'm looking to break in as a game developer... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see why any hotshot developer would work for them, either.
Other outfits may be sweatshops, too, but EA is a known sweatshop.
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Problem (Score:3, Insightful)