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.'"
No Problem (Score:5, Funny)
I kid, I kid...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So where does the money actually go?
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
So where does the money actually go?
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Informative)
Graphics are easy to see without playing. However, I don't see how you can deduce the gameplay characteristics of a game series you've never played. As a semi-regular Madden buyer, I'll address the issue anyways. Those improvements are incremental but if you look at how long it ususally takes to develop a sequel to a game (2-3 years) and what Madden has done in that amount of time, the changes are typically quite drastic. That would explain where the money went. I still maintain that I'd rather play Madden 07 than Madden 06 with 07's roster and that's been true every year except for IMHO some exceptionally poor showings from 2001 to 2003 (in Madden years).
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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
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: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:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Interesting)
Games of today are much more complex, but the 'Invention of invention' was made decades ago, so we expect a lot more out of the industry today. Barnes & Noble or Amazon have shelves of books explaining how to write 2D/3D/board games, which is a huge benefit over the 'old days'. Pre-1990 you almost had to grow up in Silicon Valley so your dad could show you why you use "poke 3e, ff" to clear the screen on your Apple II. Now you can buy books showing you how to build your logic loop, collision detection, etc. And that's for the 'hardcore' coders who want to know the mechanics. Everyone else can just download/buy a game engine and make function calls.
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Cry me a river...all the way to the bank! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I built a computer at that price I'd put at least 512MB RAM in it. PS3 only has 256MB. It's pretty worthless as a desktop computer. It will be a long time before much has been ported to cell, so it's pretty worthless as anything but a Blu-Ray player or a game console. No more than 5% of the population of the US will give a fuck about Blu-Ray b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes yes, and if I built a PC I'd put a 256MB video card in it and I'd have 768MB. But you can't lump the memory together, and doing so displays your ignorance of the topic we're discussing. Now granted, there are UMA solutions that use part of your system memory as video memory, but due to the performance impact, most of us try to avoid doing such things anywhere other than servers and such where it doesn't matter.
The fact remains that the PS3 has only 256MB of memory for programs and data. Period. Not
Re: (Score:2)
As to how I got PS3 out of $699...that's pretty simple. If someone is refering to an expensive console, which one do you think they are talking abou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your complaints about beating a dead horse aside (I'm adressing both Brkello and DeadChobi), My initial comment was a response to EA complaints about how they only pull in 45% profit after development and marketing instead of 65% (actual numbers may vary). It was my way of saying "Too bad EA; prices are jacked up all over the place, and the last place I want to hear from about it is a megacorporation who's bottom line business practices and profit before peole attitude jacked up all the prices in the first
Meh. (Score:5, Interesting)
The developers who are creative and try to build new, interesting games every time in the interest of having fun and helping others have fun.
And the developers who are in an 'arms race' to make the most flashy eye candy possible in the name of capturing market share.
Gosh, wonder where EA fits in? I have a lot of respect for the way Shiny produced a decade of great games. As did Microprose. Blizzard is arguably doing the same thing now. Nintendo has spent a decade being a developer of quality.
EA, well, they're a good distributor. Sometimes........... erm. No. Never mind. Their games have gotten better implemented recently, but I've never played a groundbreaking EA game. So yeah, since they're just racing the competition to build the best game within the lines given to them, it's going to be expensive. And I have zero pity on them for high dev costs; that's the segment of the market they are going after...
Re:Meh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's not try to be coy here because I'm having a problem interpreting exactly what you're saying. Infact statements like these are so non-committal that it makes me wonder if you're not sure of what you're trying to say or if you're just taking a cheap shot at EA.
According to you there are two types of game developers: creative and eye candy.
IMHO EA fits into both of these neat little categories that you've made. Sure, we all know the eye candy aspect of creating games like Maden. But EA also has gone out on a limb by publishing some fairly shaky (as in proven markets) titles like Alice and Undying. From my understanding EA took a bath on both of these games. I like both of them and own them but honestly if the game market is not buying these titles who can blame EA? They're not starving artists, they're a company that needs to pull a profit to keep people employed and to (hopefully) develop new and better products.
Re: (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.
ea sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Another example is C&C generals. Command and Conquer was one of the oldest and best RTS games out there. Red Alert was crazy intelligent and well rounded. Then you got generals. That buggy piece of shit, with the crappiest (still years after release) netcode and a myrad of design changes and bugs. They totally broke the whole c&c franchise by developing a whole new story for the universe. That game should not even be called c&c. Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia entry:
I mean how fucking apathetic do you have to be to not even bother fixing MAJOR exploits in the game?
EA is simply the worst about not fixing bugs. It seems as if they have a memory of 1 year. If a game is passed one year release, its time to either a) tack on an expansion b) make a sequel or c) bargain bin it and stop all development.
Like I am having trouble believing that you are not some sort of shill for EA. They ruined so many good games. UO is another one, where they decided just realeasing new art every year or so and charging an extra $59.99 for it was a valid way to "improve" the game. Simcity too. The graphics on simcity 4000 are SO BUGGY, that I had to hunt around and try multiple point realeases of nvidia video drivers before I wouldnt get crazy random graphics corruption happening in that game. They had some good ideas with the whole multiple cities on a continent theme, but If I cant see it because of graphics bugs then wtf good is it?? This is also on multiple machines with both ATI and NVIDIA cards. You can get it running if you find the exact magic combination of drivers and details/resolutions but come on! EA is a huge company! Maybe thats why they make such shit now, too much beurocracy, not enough risk taking.
I just remembered one last thing I absolutely hate about ea's business practices. Every time I logged into BF2, I would get an ad for some other stupid EA game or bf2 pay for mod. Showing ads to me in a game that I have PURCHASED is crossing the line.
Now thats 4 games, and I didnt actually play the games you mentioned. Seems like alot of people (usually on consoles so what do they know?) forgive them for various UI bugs that I would consider unacceptable in a gold game. I don't play sports games but I have heard them roundly condemed by everyone who does. Fuck EA. They took their slogan too literally and "challenged" good gameplay, exsisting franchises and good quality code. From what I have read about the practices at that company re developers, I am not surprised in the slightest that they produce the most buggy unplayable games I have ever tried to play.
Re: (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
Re:Meh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, Blizzard makes really awesome games, but they're spending as much as EA is on each title. When a game flops, or if they invest a lot of time and can't get it to market for whatever reason, they're in a world of hurt. Actually, blizzard is probably sitting on such a cash hoard at this point, they'll be ok for a very long time, but other developers could really get burned.
Re:Meh. (Score:4, Informative)
Bah... it doesn't have to be that expensive. I've plugged them before here and I'll plug them again because I think that the company is amazing: Stardock [stardock.com]. They're a tiny, independent developer/publisher about 30 minutes from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Their most notable game is Galactic Civilizations 2 [galciv2.com], which includes 3D modeling, professional music score and sound effects, an insane amount of detail, excellent replayability, challenging AI, and very balanced gameplay. When I think "independent game developer", lame little Flash-based games are what come to mind. However GalCiv2 *fully* competes with anything EA has ever put out. Stardock also has a very "pro-customer" stance [galciv2.com] on copy protection too.
Re:Meh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But Trogdor [homestarrunner.com] is my favorate game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the developers who are in an 'arms race' to make the most flashy eye candy possible in the name of capturing market share.
Gosh, wonder where EA fits in?
EA fits both categories, they have highly experimental games coming from studios they own like Maxis. Don't forget Spore as well.
But a big business can't run their entire operation, for years, based no the premise "h
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Well, two ways for BF2142. Better not about the spyware for in-game advertising on that one. They make money even if you pirate the game.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
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?
Re:This has been bothering me for a while. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This has been bothering me for a while. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. I would wager, the use of licensed code probably contributes to better games, overall, than the practice of writing the engine in house. Unless you need that next-generation engine that nobody else can offer, it's probably cheaper to license the engine from somebody else. The dev time saved alone is probably worth the cost, and time not spent developing the engine can be put to better use solving other conundrums.
2. Daikatana died less because of how long it took, and more because, by the time it finally was released, it did nothing that other games hadn't already done better. The problem was not the farcically long development time, but that the development time hadn't produced a good enough game to warrant the time spent, let alone the ludicrous hype.
3. There's almost never enough time. Unless you have a guaranteed seller on your hands (instead of just the latest iteration in the race for totally immersive graphics), you simply can't take as long as you like. Games have competitors, and the audience is fickle beside.
Re: (Score:2)
That had to be much more expensive than programmer-inspired beeping in earlier games. And it is well worth it. The whole game costs less than one seat at a symphony.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, folks. I'm not saying 'ZOMG! ATARI WUZ TEH KOOLIST!' I'm saying that the fancy sound, graphics, and so forth that go with current-gen games have not significantly enhanced most of the games being produced, except for their price tags.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't believe cynical overgeneralizations still get modded up around here. There's a lot of noise out there, but also some killer fun games. The emerging cinematic elements aren't a substitution for fun, but a huge addition to the ones which do it right.
Nintendo (Score:5, Interesting)
Statements like these give me hope for the success of Nintendo. From what I've heard, it is far easier and cheaper to code for the Wii (and similarly the DS/GBA) than for the "true" next-gen systems. Perhaps while the large companies are making the blockbuster big-budget games, Nintendo will attract the more indy, affordable games. Then when people get more accustomed to the PS3 and 360, (perhaps) costs will come down enough to make it more reasonable.
Or maybe Xbox Live and the equivalent for the PS3 will just get an explosion of smaller games, and there will be just a small number of blockbusters coming out on the system proper.
Re: (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 anyth
define 'crazy' (Score:3, Interesting)
According to Mark Rein Gears of War had a $10m pricetag.
And what would be even more interesting was a breakdown of the costs. For example, is it less expensive to use original music or licensed music.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does this compare to movies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How does this compare to movies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. However, one thing to note, these types of movies also have a different life cycle.
I'm sure there are other parts of this cycle they make money off a movie's produc
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Half-Life 1 came out how many years ago? How much support has Valve dumped into it? Into it's expansions, mods, and successors?
Now take almost any of EA's major franchises. Need for Speed, The Sims, C&C, etc.
After the intial sale, how much effort has put into maintaining and supporting any of the games in any of their franchises?
When Half-Life 2 was released, you could (and can st
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(The irony was too much for me, -1 Offtopic I think, but worth it)
Being a Spelling Nazi (Score:4, Informative)
Umm, it's "per se".
I realize this is how different flavours of languages propagate over the ages, but I'm all in favor of keeping English as unified as possible.
Solomon
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you'll find per se is Latin :-)
So? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thou dost mock mine native tongue with banterings of a barbrian! Have at thee with bulbous and troubedore pestilence!
Heh... (Score:2)
We've got bits of French, Latin, Spanish, Italian, and a horde of other languages intermixed in there. To say it's not English when it's in common usage instead of just used in specific circles is being a pedant about it.
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: (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 en
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me a wiiver (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple truth of the matter is developers need to make games. That is all. Some people like wii games, some people don't. The wii is a new product in nintendos linup and i'm sure it will do good but it isn't the be all end all that people preach around here.
I like my graphics, i don't mind some cutscenes as games are sometimes stories that need some telling as well. You can preach the wii all you want, but the wii is a console, not a game.
The real problem with the media market in general (not just games) is public companies having to increase there bottom line as if we are just a product consumer. Most gamers don't play games because we need to, but because we want to and if EA doesn't make games we want to play it won't matter which console they prefer to support, how much money they dump into or whos name they get on it.. It will still suck.
EA is like the motor giants of detroit, they had some good linups but thought Americans would buy crap just because of name alone. Forget quality, forget character, forget slick design, feedback and personality. Its about profit. It costs money to make money and if you don't like that, then leave. Maybe EA needs some new management, someone who understands what a gamer feels when he/she is in the passion of the moment.
I like the small shops because they do one thing and do it well. Epic turns out one hit after another because they stick to what they're good at and they sell the technology to others so they can build what they're good at as well.
The problem with EA is they're a company who believes that buying up markets creates demand and that is where they will fail. You don't own me EA and thus i don't own anything from you.
Cost != quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Ubisoft has thrown their weight behind the Wii, and embraced the much cheaper development costs there. They aren't ignoring the PS3 and 360, but those Wii titles will help cushion their bottom line a bit. EA doesn't seem to have paid as much attention to the Wii when it comes to unique IP.
Huh? (Score:2)
I thought these were the guys who make tweaks to the same games and release new ones every year with a new year number.* That's gotta be the least expensive way to make a new game (unless you go Burger King's route).
Maybe they're upset about new control schemes by Sony and especially Nintendo causing them to actually have to code something INNOVATIVE.
* - Yeah, if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the sports genre... I haven't bought even one sports title, unless you count Tony Hawk.
Re: (Score:2)
Cost reduction? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could game companies do something like this? Every game is going to have proprietary assets like the protagonist, specific types of giant robots, monsters, vampires, what have you. But does some of this info get shared even between sub-studios? How many times is AI code re-written? (That may be a bad example, as AI code may or may not be part of the engine). Can we just use the same Enzo Ferrari model in each racing game? Do we really need 7 different companies perfecting how the car looks?
I don't think this will lead to homogeny in games. If anything, it will free up designers to be more creative and think about the important things in the game (gameplay, control, fun) as opposed to how accurate Scenery Team 3's rendition of this waterfall is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to see is a generalization of your idea to games as a whole. What if someone made a kind of game toolbox with an easy-to-use interface for adding graphical objects, AI, dialogue, etc? Ditto for CGI movies. Like Red vs Blue with Halo, but make the game centered around making movie scenes rather than have to make do with what's possi
Re: (Score:2)
I've never used it, so I don't know how easy or difficult it is.
Re: (Score:2)
See Garage Games for a start; there are model and texture packs available for a fistful of dollars.
Licensees get access to all sorts of neat code, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Things are different when you go lower tech. I use nothing but stock sounds and music in my stuff, and I've
You beat me to this (Score:2)
Now, not every game ca
Yeah... (Score:2)
The biggest problem with all of this stuff is that it tends to make things cookie-cutter unless you're grabbing
things like trees, mood music, or sound effects from them. It shortens the cycle at least some- but, depending
on the game, it makes it seem cheap if you get carried away with the use of off the shelf content. But, they
COULD be using the stuff a little more, I think, without causing problems with
Spending more (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but the other companies pay their employees overtime.
How many times do we have to hear it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Costs like a movie (Score:2)
This is a bit of a catch 22. It's been a big push since the Atari/NES days to keep improving graphics, which comes at developing more sophisticated machines, which increases development time, which increases the cost of games. Also, as games continue to morph into an interactive story/movie, more time will need to be spent in much the same way it takes time to create film or write a book.
Of course, I'm putting my money on the Wii for one of these reasons. Given that the actual technological specs aren'
A theory I've had for a while (Score:4, Interesting)
But I do have a theory about the games industry...
Let's forget about all the hype of next generation blah blah blah. Look at the differences between game generations. Between SNES and PSX, between PSX and PS2/Xbox, etc. The graphical jump has been undeniably great. Now we're getting closer and closer to reall life. And it's taking longer and longer to make games more realistic. But here's the catch: in 5-10 years, that will probably go the other direction, making it easier ot make really good looking games. Think about the advances in 3D Modeling in the last 10 years. I worked with Max and Maya when they were both in infancy and I'm blown away at hte ease of some of the things that you can do now. How long is it goig to be before it just CAN'T look any better that what you have? I can't see any reason why within 5 years you won't be able to tell the difference between the real world and a game.
My theory is that in no more then 10 years, making something look like real life will be easy enough that it won't take a team of people with art degrees to do it. That's what the industry demands, and that's what's driving the technology. Soon you should be able to pick from a library of cars and buildings and people that can interact and get destroyed in a realistic fasion and will be pluggable into any environment. People will start whole businesses providing content like this and it will bring costs down for everyone for once LOL
Anyway, maybe it's the ramblings of a madman, but maybe there's a little hint of the future there.
I'm gonna go back to coding my own Final Fantasy VI clone now
-Jason
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Got it posted anywhere?
If you think that commercial renderers are amazing, what I've found is that the free software world is even more-so. For example, projects such as Blender [blender3d.org] and Cinelerra [heroinewarrior.com] are amazing in their capabilities. Even with such software as the GIMP [gimp.org] you can do rather wicked things.
Now stepping into the arena of game creation, I'm becoming increasingly impressed with projects such as OGRE 3d [ogre3d.org], which unfortunately lacks somewhat i
Re: (Score:2)
How's this for a reason: Toy Story was released in 1995, and while it looked great it didn't come close to looking like the real world -- in fact, it made it blatantly clear just how far computer rendering was from making a believable human being. Today's gaming hardware couldn't possibly render Toy Story in real-time, and probably won't be able to in five years either. Five more years of
Hmmm... I wonder if buying up all the rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That must be an expensive graphic design company they have for their box covers. You know, going into the text edit tool changing a digit and all that.
I develop games as a hobby (Score:5, Interesting)
For the last couple years, I've been planning a campaign [adamandjamie.com] for the sequel. Neverwinter Nights 2 has far better graphics and tremendous flexibility when it comes to designing areas. Such advances have a cost, however. File sizes are much larger, area creation can take ten times as long, and creating custom models is much more complicated.
Don't get me wrong - I love the new features and style. Improved graphics can make for a better gaming experience and a greater emotional impact for players. As with all things, though, there are trade-offs. I suspect we'll see more divisions between the "fun, simple, and cheap" games like Bejeweled versus the big budget games like Gears of War. There will be audiences for both.
Cost factor is the same old same old... (Score:5, Informative)
- Unrealistic schedules: A marketing dweeb decides when a game should be released without taking into consideration the developer's experience level, console manufacturing requirements, and whether enough QA will be available to adequately test the title. As a lead QA tester, I routinely add two months to the schedule and my time estimates are usually 90% correct.
- Bonus Structure: The producer's bonus is tied to the unrealistic schedule and a lot of decisions are made to compromises the game so the producer can get his bonus. As a lead QA tester, I was routinely accused of denying a producer his "hard earned" bonus.
- Unrestrained QA Overtime: If a game is not properly scheduled and managed, a tremendous amount of QA overtime will go into trying to save the game and, almost always, is shipped regardless of the final quality. As a lead QA tester, I worked 28 days straight on my last project because the schedule was cut by one-third and I was not notified until half-way through the project.
I'm not holding my breath that the video game industry will one day figure out that there's a saner method for developing a video game that doesn't blow the schedule and the budget like a bad lunch at Taco Bell.Re: (Score:2)
Programmers were viewed as exempt and so those unrealistic schedules allowed the companies to force unpaid overtime on to them.
I highly value our QA team. They save us from putting hideous bugs into production all the time.
OTH. I manage relations between them and programmers all the time. They can develop a "GOTCHA" attitude that is irritating. And programmers can become defensive when valid bugs are found in their code. You constantly have to sell "QA is your friend
It is EA because of licensing. (Score:2)
The Madden franchise will save them of course, and be well worth all the money they
Bigger budget != better game (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Game developers (and many gamers) seem to think that the only way to improve a game system is to remake the same games with bette
Well Lets See Here (Score:2)
Three letters: XNA (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, but my game cost only 500 dollars to develop (Score:3, Interesting)
Programming zero
Project management zero
Graphic artist zero
Advertising zero
Publishing 500.00 (this is how much is cost to rent the web server)
Total 500.00
You can play it here: www.denizengames.com
And yes the above does mean that my time for this project was free.