Quantcast
Community Discussion: Blog by Jinx 01 | Why Next-Gen Development May Be CheaperDestructoid
LIGHTS:  ON | OFF
surf dtoid with arrow keys

HOT GAMES
REVIEWS VIDEOS COMMUNITY FORUM SHOP

pc PS4 PS3 NEXT XBOX XBOX 360 WII U 3DS PS vita ANDROID APPLE

REMOVE ALL ADS?
Guaranteed contest entry?
A new video show?
Something else?

Vote in our membership poll

click to hide banner header
About
I am a doctoral student in Cultural Anthropology, with a bachelor's in English & Creative Writing. I specialize in subcultures and cognition.

I love gaming, and I have followed the industry and its technology since I was a kid in the 80's. I have gamed primarily on PC since 2000, though I still follow console news and hardware as well. I was also a sales associate at Micro Center for a while, which was a great experience and got me into PC hardware.

I worked as a mapper and beta tester for the mod Action Half-Life. My maps, most of which have vanilla Half-Life Deathmatch versions, are available on my website.

I also had a blog featured on Gamasutra:
Making Proper Versions of Cross-Platform Games
Player Profile
Steam ID:cryotek
Follow me:
Facebook:Link
Jinx 01's sites
Badges
Following (6)  


*rework of previous blog I did under the nick ‘cryotek’*



A frequent argument against new console hardware is that it would put a huge burden on developers. Many AAA titles already have budgets in the tens of millions, and the common wisdom is that building games to take advantage of next-gen hardware would further increase this expense. The reasoning seems self-evident: lower end hardware has less detailed games, meaning it requires lower quality resources and less work. This isn’t always the case, however, and this argument is based on some flawed assumptions.

We could say that consoles go through a three-stage life cycle when it comes to development. Early titles often wow because of the new hardware, but don’t approach the system’s potential. Then after a couple years we reach the golden age of a console, where developers know what they are doing and are putting out titles befitting a system’s capabilities.

There is a third phase, however, as a system ages. Gamers expect visual improvements over time, even on the same hardware. To meet these expectations, developers must put more and more technical work toward overcoming hardware limitations. Eventually a turning point can be reached. A game like Watch Dogs might be possible on the PS3, yes. But it would probably be less work to make for the PS4 because the developers wouldn't have to wrack their brains trying to “fit” it into the system's capabilities.


I do not envy Ubisoft the task of porting Watch Dogs to console.

The argument that game resources will become more expensive – from textures to models to game levels – remains, though. But not only can we refute this argument, we can turn it on its head. Let’s start with textures.

Higher Quality Game Resources

Most games start with higher quality texture resources than the current consoles can use anyway. This is clear from the PC versions of cross-platform games, which usually sport higher quality textures. So developers are already making next-gen quality textures – they just can’t use them on the PS3/360. They are also, as in the case of many Unreal Engine 3 titles, forced to implement buggy streaming tricks with texture resources due to RAM limitations. Again, this is more work they wouldn’t be doing with better hardware.


Alan Wake’s PC port shows that next-gen quality textures are already being made for games.

Let’s move on to creating models for players, monsters, and level props. When it comes to modeling, the work isn’t just making a highly detailed model– it is making a model that looks detailed but is efficient in its use of polygons, etc. More powerful hardware allows for more detailed models and reduces the need for agonizing levels of optimization. Yes, it can actually be easier to make high detail models.

The same logic applies to level design. I used to map for the original Half-Life, and making game levels that looked detailed, but stayed within the old engine’s polygon “budget”, was a lot of work. As a mod mapper I rather enjoyed the technical challenge. But professional level designers need to produce content quickly, not struggle to fit their vision into a system’s resource budget.

And don’t forget – some parts of development won’t change much at all. Voice acting, sound effects, and soundtracks, for example, have more or less peaked. Their quantity and quality is no longer a hardware limitation. Whether Uncharted 5 were to come out for the PS3 or PS4, there would be no reason to think the audio budget would be any different.

Learning New Hardware

What about the learning curve developers face with new hardware? Well, that depends on Microsoft and Sony. Current leaks suggest the new consoles will closely resemble PCs, a platform already familiar to developers. It’s doubtful we’ll see another system with an architecture as arcane as the PS3’s.


The PS4 doubles as a Frisbee when PSN is down, and the 720 spawns pod-people. True story.

Hardware is only one factor of the learning curve, too. There are already several game engines ready to take advantage of next-gen consoles – CryEngine 3, Unreal Engine 3, Frostbyte 2, and Unigine are all designed to scale up. Being able to use familiar engines would greatly reduce the learning curve for developers, and the engines themselves often do much of the “porting” work for developers. Doing cross-development on PC is good practice for next-gen console development as well. So developers will probably go into the next console generation with more resources and more readiness than you might expect.


Star Wars 1313 runs on an advanced version of Unreal Engine 3 and may be the first next-gen only title to be revealed.

“What about Unreal Engine 4?” you ask? Everyone seems to look at the screenshots and say “too expensive”… yet UE4 actually supports my lower-cost argument. Read the Wired interview with Epic’s Tim Sweeny, or watch the UE4 Developer Walkthrough. The engine is specifically designed to make development easier and faster – but it needs better hardware to run.


“Sweeney has stuffed UE4 with tools that promise shortened production pipelines and lower production costs (and all the profit that such efficiency represents).” – Stu Horvath, Wired.

In Conclusion

It is only because the current console generation is shooting for a longer lifespan that these late-life development issues have become so relevant. Typically a new generation of consoles would already be out by now. Instead, developers are left to struggle with hardware that can barely run the games they are throwing at it. While they are putting out some amazing titles, that doesn’t mean it’s cheap. As I have shown, working with old hardware can be inefficient and costly. You also have to wonder - how much more content could developers give us if they weren't fighting the hardware?

I think a lot of this “too expensive” talk is us, as gamers, projecting our own financial anxieties onto developers. But developers will be just fine. As with the current console generation, there will be plenty of room for both AAA titles and smaller download titles. And even small developers making budget titles will benefit from the extra horsepower available to them.

There are valid reasons to hold back on new consoles, of course. They are a big risk/investment for the maker, and in a bad economy that risk is even greater. Some gamers seem content with current offerings and don’t want to buy new hardware. All of which is fine – but let’s not pretend we’re out to help developers when we’re not.

*Part of the reason I reworked and reposted this blog is because it will lead into a few other articles I have outlined - most relating to next-gen console and PC hardware*



Is this blog awesome? Vote it up!




Those who have come:



Did you know? You can now get daily or weekly email notifications when humans reply to your comments.

Legacy Comments (will be imported soon)


Very interesting points you bring up.
unfortunately it wont be
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.
Solid blog yo
@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.
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.
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?
"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.
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)?
@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.
@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!

Back to Top
DLC   |   BEST Games of 2012   |   Best PC Games   |   Best PS3 Games   |   Best Xbox 360 Games   |   Best Wii U Games   |   Best 3DS Games




All content is yours to recycle through our Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing requiring attribution. Our communities are obsessed with videoGames, movies, anime, and toys.

Living the dream since March 16, 2006

Advertising on destructoid is available: Please contact them to learn more