You raise some good points, and initially, when the only metric by which next-gen games are measured is previous-gen games, production costs will be much lower. However, I have a feeling that as time goes on, within a 18-24 months, developers and publishers will start fighting one another "keeping up with the Joneses" style, leading once more to spiraling production costs.
At the end of the day, optimizing textures and models for old hardware is nearly the least concern for a production budget. It certainly accounts for some expense, I won't deny that. But the greatest costs are the artists who initially create the assets: models, textures, animations, sound effects, voices, and music. Not to mention writers. And those costs aren't going away any time soon, gamers always want more and better.
At the end of the day, optimizing textures and models for old hardware is nearly the least concern for a production budget. It certainly accounts for some expense, I won't deny that. But the greatest costs are the artists who initially create the assets: models, textures, animations, sound effects, voices, and music. Not to mention writers. And those costs aren't going away any time soon, gamers always want more and better.
@Aequitas:
You're right, eventually these will probably go up. But I think developers will have a jump on things next gen because they can use the same engines and port over the PC copy's texture/model resources. Besides, it's not like developers are being *forced* to suicidally spend themselves into ruin. Most examples of teams going under are the result of terrible management on the part of the developer or publisher (see: LA Noire and Kingdoms of Amalur).
I should have mentioned this in the article, but many visual benefits that come from new hardware have nothing to do with better art assets at all. If you take a console game and run it on PC at 1080p/60fps with high quality anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, better lighting and shadowing, improved draw distances and less 'pop-in', etc... All of that's going to create a better experience just by virtue of the hardware. Not extra developer work needed.
Not every game has to be a $60 AAA retail release now, either. There's plenty of room for developers to make smaller download titles now. Even those, though, will benefit from basic hardware scaling. A $15 download title like Trine 2 still looks far better on a PC.
A final side note- games sold digitally have about twice the profit margin as games sold at retail (no manufacturing, shipping, or retail costs). That's why the PC market, though smaller, is still very lucrative. Even retail titles bypass brick and mortar stores on their DLC. If next-gen consoles offer more titles digitally - and they will - increased profits will help offset any increased development costs.
*sorry, didn't mean to write another entire blog as a response* *head/desk*
Thanks for the smart feedback :)
@Scissors & Phil:
Thank you for the comments and encouragement :)
@Stealth:
Thanks for the comment, but it's not that constructive if you don't address any issues.
You're right, eventually these will probably go up. But I think developers will have a jump on things next gen because they can use the same engines and port over the PC copy's texture/model resources. Besides, it's not like developers are being *forced* to suicidally spend themselves into ruin. Most examples of teams going under are the result of terrible management on the part of the developer or publisher (see: LA Noire and Kingdoms of Amalur).
I should have mentioned this in the article, but many visual benefits that come from new hardware have nothing to do with better art assets at all. If you take a console game and run it on PC at 1080p/60fps with high quality anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, better lighting and shadowing, improved draw distances and less 'pop-in', etc... All of that's going to create a better experience just by virtue of the hardware. Not extra developer work needed.
Not every game has to be a $60 AAA retail release now, either. There's plenty of room for developers to make smaller download titles now. Even those, though, will benefit from basic hardware scaling. A $15 download title like Trine 2 still looks far better on a PC.
A final side note- games sold digitally have about twice the profit margin as games sold at retail (no manufacturing, shipping, or retail costs). That's why the PC market, though smaller, is still very lucrative. Even retail titles bypass brick and mortar stores on their DLC. If next-gen consoles offer more titles digitally - and they will - increased profits will help offset any increased development costs.
*sorry, didn't mean to write another entire blog as a response* *head/desk*
Thanks for the smart feedback :)
@Scissors & Phil:
Thank you for the comments and encouragement :)
@Stealth:
Thanks for the comment, but it's not that constructive if you don't address any issues.
This was a really informative article and I learnt a lot! However, I think I will buy a next-gen console once the initial price drops a little. You make a good point that games development and digital sales shouldn't cost more, though.
Maybe my memory is failing me, but I don't remember a time before this console generation when studios were folding right after - or sometimes before - their game launches. I mean. Prototype 2 was the best selling game of April at more than a million, but the studio is all but done. Heck, Team Bondi went out of business before L.A. Noire (a multi million seller I might add) was even released!
Of course you could argue that at least some of these closures were due to a poorly run/financed company. 38 Studios was a great example of that. But when a million selling game is considered a financial loss, something is wrong with the development process.
Of course you could argue that at least some of these closures were due to a poorly run/financed company. 38 Studios was a great example of that. But when a million selling game is considered a financial loss, something is wrong with the development process.
There are plenty of studios that could have survived the previous generation that have died this time around.
I think a lot of people forget that there's a lot more to game development these days than some of the nifty stuff Unreal Engine handles automatically. Aside from just art assets, you need people to create all the smooth character animations. You need motion-capture, which means you need to hire physical actors. If you're lucky you can just use the same actor for voice as well, but in some cases you end up having two different people that need to get paid. You need to pay for the space to do all that motion capture as well.
People are going to expect characters to be much more dynamic in appearance as well, and you may even need to create a variety of wireframes and skeletons to attach all of those models to. Then there's making animations for all of those.
Not to mention a lot of issues not handled by something like the Unreal Engine. Artificial Intelligence isn't merely about how smart one enemy is, it's about how smart you can make multiple enemies on screen, as well as A.I. companions. Not to mention all the other dynamic elements that just scream "Next-Gen". You need people to program that, and while they don't have to program physics as much anymore they're still going to need a lot of time and money.
Then there are the level designers having to deal with much more complex geometry. Even though those engines help, you're still going to need to make sure each crack and crevice behaves as proper and people don't go falling through the level. Then there's more art assets for each room so it doesn't just look like generic boxes are littering the environment for cover...
No matter which way you look at it, part of "next-gen" means "more complex", and even if you have a better engine to automatically do a lot of the little things for you, you still need to make the game itself.
Also: Ubisoft is publishing Watch Dogs, not Squenix. They're doing... Sleeping Dogs?
I think a lot of people forget that there's a lot more to game development these days than some of the nifty stuff Unreal Engine handles automatically. Aside from just art assets, you need people to create all the smooth character animations. You need motion-capture, which means you need to hire physical actors. If you're lucky you can just use the same actor for voice as well, but in some cases you end up having two different people that need to get paid. You need to pay for the space to do all that motion capture as well.
People are going to expect characters to be much more dynamic in appearance as well, and you may even need to create a variety of wireframes and skeletons to attach all of those models to. Then there's making animations for all of those.
Not to mention a lot of issues not handled by something like the Unreal Engine. Artificial Intelligence isn't merely about how smart one enemy is, it's about how smart you can make multiple enemies on screen, as well as A.I. companions. Not to mention all the other dynamic elements that just scream "Next-Gen". You need people to program that, and while they don't have to program physics as much anymore they're still going to need a lot of time and money.
Then there are the level designers having to deal with much more complex geometry. Even though those engines help, you're still going to need to make sure each crack and crevice behaves as proper and people don't go falling through the level. Then there's more art assets for each room so it doesn't just look like generic boxes are littering the environment for cover...
No matter which way you look at it, part of "next-gen" means "more complex", and even if you have a better engine to automatically do a lot of the little things for you, you still need to make the game itself.
Also: Ubisoft is publishing Watch Dogs, not Squenix. They're doing... Sleeping Dogs?
"You also have to wonder - how much more content could developers give us if they weren't fighting the hardware? "
A rhetorical question I'm guessing, but it is exciting to hope that developers won't have to worry a lot about this for consoles. Possibly there would be more time able to be spent on level/game design while the programming and engine would be relatively easier to finish up enough for content-gen to really get to work. Basically I think of how people or teams of 2-4 can more or less replicate games frrom 15 years ago in a matter of months, and that's pretty amazing.
A rhetorical question I'm guessing, but it is exciting to hope that developers won't have to worry a lot about this for consoles. Possibly there would be more time able to be spent on level/game design while the programming and engine would be relatively easier to finish up enough for content-gen to really get to work. Basically I think of how people or teams of 2-4 can more or less replicate games frrom 15 years ago in a matter of months, and that's pretty amazing.
I would be very happy if we could start producing higher res versions of our zombie brethren. Thus far, the animations are a little unrealistic.
However, looking at the Resident Evil series we see that low-tech forced Capcom to alter their pre-production cannon. They made the zombies into zombots.
My probing proposal to you is: Do you think that higher realism will stifle limitation-based creativity (vis a vis: zombie robots in RE)?
However, looking at the Resident Evil series we see that low-tech forced Capcom to alter their pre-production cannon. They made the zombies into zombots.
My probing proposal to you is: Do you think that higher realism will stifle limitation-based creativity (vis a vis: zombie robots in RE)?
@ScottyG:
Team Bondi had massive problems - they took seven years to make their $50 million dollar game, had a terrible relationship with Rockstar, and had all sorts of labor-related issues. Compare that to CP Projekt, who put out The Witcher 2 in a few years for under 10 million. Team Bondi's problems were managerial incompetence, to the point that they drove themselves so far into debt that their game's success became irrelevant. And look at 3DRealms Duke Forever fiasco. Blaming this stuff on development costs isn't logical when those costs were inflated due to human incompetence.
Some of the issues relate to publishers, too. They tend to treat developers like crap, and close studios for very little reason. Being an 'owned' developer right now is about as safe as being a sci-fi show on FOX in the 90's.
@Ccesarino:
You make a lot of good points. I guess my main counter-argument would be that gamers will expect those improvements even if we don't get new hardware. If I was a developer I'd rather have better hardware and tools to meet those expectations...? A lot of this learning (especially AI) is essentially cumulative, too.
And derp my bad about the Watch Dogs publisher, I'll fix that.
Thanks again for the comments, guys.
Team Bondi had massive problems - they took seven years to make their $50 million dollar game, had a terrible relationship with Rockstar, and had all sorts of labor-related issues. Compare that to CP Projekt, who put out The Witcher 2 in a few years for under 10 million. Team Bondi's problems were managerial incompetence, to the point that they drove themselves so far into debt that their game's success became irrelevant. And look at 3DRealms Duke Forever fiasco. Blaming this stuff on development costs isn't logical when those costs were inflated due to human incompetence.
Some of the issues relate to publishers, too. They tend to treat developers like crap, and close studios for very little reason. Being an 'owned' developer right now is about as safe as being a sci-fi show on FOX in the 90's.
@Ccesarino:
You make a lot of good points. I guess my main counter-argument would be that gamers will expect those improvements even if we don't get new hardware. If I was a developer I'd rather have better hardware and tools to meet those expectations...? A lot of this learning (especially AI) is essentially cumulative, too.
And derp my bad about the Watch Dogs publisher, I'll fix that.
Thanks again for the comments, guys.
@Zombie Orwell:
I'm not going to deny that limitations can breed creativity... but a lot of that creativity is put toward surpassing those very limitations! I spent a lot of time rigging a way to fake volumetric light beams in Half-Life 1. But if I could have just *done* that with the engine, what else might I have been doing with that time? Personally I'd like to put the best tools and hardware in front of developers and see what they come up with. Gamers who think current-gen consoles can do everything well enough are a bit arrogant imo to assume developers won't come up with anything novel if given more power. I also think it's unfair to shove the burden of improving graphics/gameplay entirely on developers without giving them better tools occasionally!
I'm not going to deny that limitations can breed creativity... but a lot of that creativity is put toward surpassing those very limitations! I spent a lot of time rigging a way to fake volumetric light beams in Half-Life 1. But if I could have just *done* that with the engine, what else might I have been doing with that time? Personally I'd like to put the best tools and hardware in front of developers and see what they come up with. Gamers who think current-gen consoles can do everything well enough are a bit arrogant imo to assume developers won't come up with anything novel if given more power. I also think it's unfair to shove the burden of improving graphics/gameplay entirely on developers without giving them better tools occasionally!

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow


send message
follow
followers




