• 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Jeust (10342 posts) -
#2 Posted by Nightriff (4349 posts) -

More and more indie games is how I read that. Seems like creating AAA titles is just too risky unless you have an established franchise already. I could see game prices go up but not that much. People are used to paying x price and if it goes up too much the sales will drop off of a cliff. Even if I had to pay more than 70 for a game, I would buy fewer games, or wait a few months and pick them up half off on Amazon, or the most likely option move over to PC and get everything off Steam Sales.

#3 Posted by adam1808 (1214 posts) -

They can't bump up prices can they? Although I don't think dev costs will double across the industry, the demand for more and more sophisticated systems and more expansive worlds is going to make games even more pricey on the development side.

I have no idea about the second-hand game market as I buy games so that developers don't go out of business.

#4 Posted by Salarn (445 posts) -

That's a real worry, 'AAA' games are already break $50mil in cost without batting an eye. The majority of the increased cost comes from content creation.

However, these costs can be mitigated by improving the tools pipeline and better asset management. If you're a large publishing house, getting sound/texture/model databases up to share across all projects will help reduce costs. As long as the pipeline to use these assets is well crafted.

Call it Moore's law or 'necessity is the mother of invention' once costs reach a certain pressure, new tools or options will be created to manage it. It's the same reason more and more middle ware is being used every 'generation' of game development. That's the real worry, games will have dozens of middle ware splash screens at load now.

#5 Posted by Phatmac (5686 posts) -

More indie games and less middle tier games.

#6 Posted by Chaser324 (5967 posts) -

Mounting development costs, specifically the increasing cost of generating assets, is already one of the biggest issues facing the industry, and it's not going away any time soon. Blockbuster or bust!

Moderator
#7 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

Wow, I thought Epic's big thing for the next generation was making it even easier to create games with the UE4 too, and they still count on such major increases? 
 
Seems to me we'll see even more franchises that can't hit ridiculous sales targets simply die out and more games "targetted at a wider audience".

#8 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

"Epic predicts that they can score more next-gen funding by overestimating how much development will cost."

#9 Posted by CookieMonster (2408 posts) -

As soon as I saw "If we extrapolate..." I called bullshit. This is just guesswork. And I don't even bother buying games full price anymore, so if the price increased further I'll just have to wait a bit longer for the price to go down.

#10 Posted by Sackmanjones (4609 posts) -

Pretty sure there was a 2k interview and they said it would actually be cheaper to produce. May have been on gamespot, can't recall

#11 Posted by NicksCorner (399 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

"Epic predicts that they can score more next-gen funding by overestimating how much development will cost."

Ha! Nicely spotted, I noticed that as their selling point in the demo as well.

#12 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

@rebgav said:

Damn Epic, if only there was some sort of third-party game-in-a-box solution which would reduce the time and cost of developing next gen games. Some sort of "game engine" with a huge feature set and easy-to-use tools which people were already familiar with. Any ideas, Epic? Hmm? HMM?!

Ridiculous! What do trains have to do with game development?

#13 Posted by McGhee (6091 posts) -

Cost of development may go up, but there's no way they will start doubling the cost of games. Maybe increase by ten dollars, but doubling the price would be suicide.

#14 Posted by crusader8463 (14319 posts) -

@McGhee said:

Cost of development may go up, but there's no way they will start doubling the cost of games. Maybe increase by ten dollars, but doubling the price would be suicide.

They already got to their magical $100 game by leaving out content and selling DLC or DLC season passes. Wouldn't be surprised to see them bump it up another $10-$20 off the top from the get go.

#15 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1357 posts) -

The thing that's always ignored in these discussions is that not every game has to be a AAA graphical masterpiece.

If a game is trying to compete with the spectacle of a Call of Duty game then sure, it might cost more to make those assets on a next-gen system, but I don't think the cost of producing your average pretty-but-not-mind-blowing game is going to increase by anywhere near that amount. Maybe I'm just not representative of the average gamer, but I have no particular issue with the graphics of most games made in the last decade, especially if they're rendered in HD.

#16 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

Pretty sure there was a 2k interview and they said it would actually be cheaper to produce. May have been on gamespot, can't recall

That is a little silly. There will be a very significant jump up in asset creation needs, which will increase the amount of manpower needed to be working on said assets.

#17 Posted by believer258 (11047 posts) -
@Sackmanjones
Pretty sure there was a 2k interview and they said it would actually be cheaper to produce. May have been on gamespot, can't recall
I thought Square said it would be cheaper as well.
On topic, I can wait for a proper price drop and play more old/cheap games. TF2, CSGO, and Steam's library isn't going anywhere. I've already given up spending $60 per game.
#18 Posted by MikkaQ (10225 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Sackmanjones said:

Pretty sure there was a 2k interview and they said it would actually be cheaper to produce. May have been on gamespot, can't recall

That is a little silly. There will be a very significant jump up in asset creation needs, which will increase the amount of manpower needed to be working on said assets.

I have a feeling it won't be as big of a dramatic jump as this generation. We went from SD to HD creating a whole new high standard of assets to render. But now companies are used to creating those assets and have streamlined their workflow accordingly. For a lot of games it's probably a simple matter of loading the high quality assets they made for the PC versions for it to look fantastic on new hardware.

#19 Posted by Ghostin (369 posts) -

Points at The Witcher 2... calls bullshit.

#20 Edited by chilibean_3 (1581 posts) -

I don't really agree with that statement but sure, whatever. Developers have already been creating high rezzzzzz assets for everything. Epic might just be trying to sell their engine here.

I feel like they'll lose out if they just bump up prices. The more likely thing is finding the pay-for-"shortcuts" are just going to be a part of every game to try and get as much money as they can. You're going to see more of what EA did with Mass Effect 3 with including micro-transactions. They're going to push for more ways to monetize the game after the initial $60 purchase. If I knew what kind of terrible, kind of gross mirco transaction wave is going to hit games I'd be getting paid the big video games buckz. But they'l find some ways. Oh, they will. And it will work.

Also, even shorter games and more finding ways to reuse those developed assets in side games or Assassin's Creed style yearly installments. Which sucks because I can't get excited for AC anymore. Do they have pills for this?

#21 Posted by msavo (7522 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

"Epic predicts that they can score more next-gen funding by overestimating how much development will cost."

That's how I read it too.

#22 Posted by Kidavenger (3380 posts) -

The only thing that is going to go up will be art asset generation and this won't effect the majority of games, claiming a doubling of development costs is silly, perhaps Epic is planning on doubling the licensing fees for Unreal Engine 4? That sounds more likely...

#23 Posted by 71Ranchero (2580 posts) -

Heres an idea, how about they just make 50% less games per year.

#24 Edited by Franstone (1057 posts) -

Wasn't Epic leading people to believe the Unreal 4 engine was going to make things easier for developers?

Now it's going to be more expensive/difficult?

#25 Posted by Silvergun (297 posts) -

@Franstone said:

Wasn't Epic leading people to believe the Unreal 4 engine was going to make things easier for developers?

Now it's going to be more expensive/difficult?

It very well might, but it has little to do with how the assets for that engine are produced. It's just giving devs a better starting point / toolbox to work with.

#26 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

As the technology advances it costs more? 
I'm so glad that Epic is here, lead by Captain F. Obvious III to tell me all of these things. 

#27 Posted by Hippie_Genocide (511 posts) -

@rebgav said:

Damn Epic, if only there was some sort of third-party game-in-a-box solution which would reduce the time and cost of developing next gen games. Some sort of "game engine" with a huge feature set and easy-to-use tools which people were already familiar with. Any ideas, Epic? Hmm? HMM?!

Well played, sir.

#28 Posted by Hailinel (22717 posts) -
@Ravenlight

"Epic predicts that they can score more next-gen funding by overestimating how much development will cost."

Bullseye.
#29 Posted by Jeust (10342 posts) -

Personally I believe costs will rise, and will probably affect the final prices to the consumer. That will possibly also be coupled with steeper season passes, or at least more often, and more severe anti-piracy and second hand measures measures, like a limit number of software activations and such.

#30 Posted by Breadfan (6586 posts) -

Thanks, Obama.

#31 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

@Ghostin said:

Points at The Witcher 2... calls bullshit.

it's a lot cheaper to make a game in Poland than to make one in the USA

#32 Posted by Mcfart (1426 posts) -

Bulshit. MS+Sony will likely implement Directx11-like technology that makes it faster/easier to implement cool graphical features in games. Doubt the Witcher 2 cost double a 360 game to produce, and a higher pixal shader level.

I expect costs will stagnate/be lower for everyone except those making huge, open world games. Those developers will have SO MANY more resources that they'll end up paying more to make the game bigger (because they can), but the resulting game will be better and sell more.

Online
#33 Posted by Clonedzero (3725 posts) -

@Atramentous said:

Heres an idea, how about they just make 50% less games per year.

i dont think you understand business

also, i hope indie gamers branch out from the pixil art and sprites stuff. the whole artsy 2d platformer with a gimmick is getting as tiresome as modern military shooters and it hasnt been as long.

#34 Posted by MildMolasses (3194 posts) -

@Salarn said:

However, these costs can be mitigated by improving the tools pipeline and better asset management. If you're a large publishing house, getting sound/texture/model databases up to share across all projects will help reduce costs. As long as the pipeline to use these assets is well crafted.

I would assume the future will either see things like you suggest (asset banks) or an increased rise in middle ware. It make more sense to license texture and other common assets from an art company, than to employ so many artists for each individual game. It keeps the dev costs down, while creating a new job market for the artists.

However even if costs do rise, I don't really expect to see it passed on to the consumer. Games have stayed in the same price range since the 80's, and have managed to almost completely bypass inflation, and are actually cheaper now if you factor that in. I don't see that as changing since any rise in the retail price would cause too much in lost sales, thus defeating the point of the price increase.

#35 Posted by 71Ranchero (2580 posts) -

@Clonedzero said:

@Atramentous said:

Heres an idea, how about they just make 50% less games per year.

i dont think you understand business

I dont think you understand sarcasm,

#36 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Don't make sense, it seems all these studios have the assets they just have to turn everything down at the end like AC3 for example. If that game had the same textures but had better shadows, high AA, better lighting and 60fps locked I would buy a next gen system now.

#37 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Atramentous said:

Heres an idea, how about they just make 50% less games per year.

Or put out games when nothing else is coming out. Medal of Honor for example a COD clone that they decide to put out 2 weeks before COD. Am I going to buy this clone or save my money for the real deal in 2 weeks. Im not a big COD fan but just an example/

#38 Edited by glyn (382 posts) -

Why can't games be a few hours long, providing a very specific but innovative experience, and be much less than $60! But super super high quality.

#39 Posted by Salarn (445 posts) -

@MildMolasses: While I'd be grumpy about it, the likely hood for the $70 retail disk and the $60 download is a possibility. Many other regions pay way more for games than US/Canada (especially considering the weakening exchange). Retail wise early adapters will pay a high price with little concern, they want their AC/CoD/Madden/etc... launch day and few will be effected by a price raise for launch games.

Games drop in price faster than movies leave theaters, even if games launch at $70+ they will be available under $30 within the first 90 days like they are now. Often perfectly timed price cut when DLC is available so the people who waited used the money they 'saved' to purchase DLC that is the much more profitable for the developer.

#40 Posted by Dagbiker (6898 posts) -
@MordeaniisChaos the assets are already created above what even ships with the pc version. The problem is the engine and memory issues. Your computer can't load up 50 people walking the streets all with 3000 polygons and 1080 * 3000 textures.
#41 Posted by JasonR86 (9379 posts) -

I bet Epic would love to increase the licensing fees for their engine too.

#42 Posted by Salarn (445 posts) -

@rebgav: I'd love to see the data that shows sales are weak for games.

#43 Posted by Sammo21 (3030 posts) -

Unless you making "indie games" that are typically 100x more interesting anyway.

I'm going to call bullshit on this. Much of the design will be the same, only textures work and art work will be the more expensive addition.

#44 Posted by cassus (319 posts) -

If they bump the prices, AAA titles will just become even less relevant. AAA titles haven't contributed anything new to gaming in this generation aside from peripheral based garbage. I know indie games are sort of a niche still, but if they start bumping AAA titles to 70 bucks or more, indie games will just take over the market more or less completely. It will also probably hurt the console market quite a bit, cause all of a sudden, buying a PC and getting games cheaper will seem like more of a reasonable option to a lot of people. Not to mention how the indie scene thrives on the PC at the moment. Consoles need to get that dealt with for the next gen, or they'll be in serious trouble. So many indie devs got burned by the current generation, and unless stuff is VERY different on the next gen, many of them will switch/stick to PC's.

That being said, the example Epic used was beyond stupid. No one in their right mind would try to do feature film levels of fidelity (and fail) in-engine for cutscenes. They would settle for lower quality or they would make that in a 3d package, render it out and add it as an FMV cutscene like games have always done. Making the video clip in the article in Maya or 3dsmax or similar would be so much easier and so much faster and it would look far better.

That's what I think, anyways, and I'm fairly sure I'm right. If developers are to spend 4 months on two and a half minutes of cutsceenes... Games would either just cut out stories all together, or take 12-15 years to make.. Considering they spend a couple of years on pixar movies, it would actually be cheaper for them to just outsource their cutscene needs to pixar.. As I said.. Duuuumb example.

#45 Edited by Salarn (445 posts) -

@rebgav said:

Retail game sales have been down all year, as reported by every single source you might care to check.

NDP numbers are garbage. They exclude all digital sales, all in game/app purchases, all DLC, all Subscription fees. If it's not sold in shrink wrap it doesn't count to them.

Yes, first time retail brick and mortar sales are down, but that's ignoring a third of all game sales based on the last ESA report. Any report that is willing to say that year to date sales on steam is a big fat $0 doesn't understand how game distribution is changing. Even Nintendo is selling it's 3DS and WiiU games via download, and the NPD will not count that either.

#46 Posted by muralbat (152 posts) -

And this is why my friends, hate on me all you will, the next gen wont be as big a jump as everyone suggests, it costs way to much to make a game that unless your an established name, will not make you nearly enough profit, henceforth games will stick to what they know at a fair price, ALAS things wont jump as majorly.

I for one, am cool with this, because games are awesome and I dont care about TEH GRAFIX.

I really couldn't give a shit

#47 Posted by ProfessorEss (7123 posts) -

If only someone made an engine that they could sell to developers to reduce these increased costs that Epic is predicting.

But seriously, this industry is in dire need of a crash and re-build anyways, maybe this will be the lynch pin.

#48 Posted by Wikitoups (713 posts) -
@rebgav silly man! Renderware doesn't exist anymore!
#49 Posted by Salarn (445 posts) -

@rebgav: The specificity for the decline in first hand retail sales was not clear in my reading of you post, so I apologize if I missed that. However, as a whole there is not a significant drop in sales numbers for games, in fact even if you look at the numbers for retail sales the most NDP report was showing a shortfall of about $750mil right before the launch of both Halo 4 and CoD:Blop2 which easily add up to that missing $$$ and this weekend is the WiiU launch.

However, it's pretty meaningless, come hell or high water, physical media for games is going to progress the same way that music has been handled. So what does it matter if the sale of retail games at GameStop, BestBuy, and Walmart is decreasing while the total revenue for games is increasing? The shift from physical to digital is where devs can stretch that $60 to hide the increase of the game's cost.

Worst case digital distribution fees is around 30% from Steam/PSN/Xbox so instead of getting $27 a copy publisher/devs will get $40 if they go digital. Even more due to the lack of a second hand market.

Games will cost more to make, the consumer might see a small increase in cost for a disk, the WiiU had a +$10 price increase over it's previous generation, and nobody is carrying pitchforks around against that, it's possible that having a physical disk will become a $10 premium versus buying the game digitally.

#50 Posted by Trainer_Red (314 posts) -

The pirates life for me?