next »

[Udderdude]

if you aren't old enough, you may not realize just how big sf2 as a phenomenon was -- there was like literally a cabinet in every store back then. there was one across my street, another a block away, another next door to that, etc., they were everywhere. they also made more than enough money from them to justify 700m spent on manufacturing cabinets.

Don't forget the cost of manufacturing the millions of console port carts that came out for SNES and Genesis ..

so in general it's true that newer games cost more, on average. but it's not as steep of an increase as you'd expect (ps2 games cost only slightly more to make than ps1 games, going from an average of 700k to an average of 800k, not several times more; it's a slow gradual increase). and the extreme outliers in high costs often took place in the 90s, not the modern day.

What's it going to take to get AAA developers to start innovating again?  I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, indies don't have to worry about a sudden influx of innovative/creative AAA games ..

[Zaphos]

In the context of a discussion about risk, what matters primarily is how much is spent before the game is proven in the market.  To the extent that those large manufacturing costs for sf2 and other older games were paid after the game was already successful (e.g. in second or later printing/production runs), they aren't relevant to the risk aversion point Darren was making.  I think what you really want to get at (though I don't know if it's possible) is cost of development + the initial print run and initial marketing campaign.

in any case, that wiki also says that the *average* development costs by console generation have gone up.

Xbox - 202 million yen ($1.8 million) / 13 titles
PlayStation 2 - 96 million yen ($877,634) / 194 titles
GameCube - 90 million yen ($822,857) / 11 titles
PlayStation Portable - 90 million yen ($822,857) / 6 titles
PlayStation - 80 million yen ($731,429) / 1 title
Game Boy Advance - 53 million yen ($484,571) / 47 titles
DS - 37 million yen ($338,286) / 3 titles
Dreamcast - 25 million yen ($228,571) / 2 titles

That's from 2005; the 2012 update to that (right below on the same page) says, generically, "In 2012, the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) of Canada gave the average development costs for various platforms as follows: [2]

Console - $8,728,125" - http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs
So, based on that, from ps2 era to ps3 era console development you basically have an order of magnitude spike in console game development cost. (edit -- Some caveats: It is unclear what games are included in the 'console' category, and unclear if the methodology of the two studies is comparable.  Also, remember to adjust for inflation.  Also, keep in mind that averages are very sensitive to outliers, and there are huge outliers in AAA game dev [like GTA 5 having a $265 million budget].)

edit: some more scattered data points: http://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-big-video-game-1501413649

[medieval]

small-time creators and innovators start something different from what is out there  -->  gain exposure, business is good --> what was small-time is now an industry --> small-time creators and innovators start something different from what is out there  -->  ∞


this doesn't apply to everything but it's what I believe happened to indie games

[gimymblert]

The things is that middle tier AAA game died, there is only a quarter of AAA studio left, but the middle tier is quickly coming back through indies and crowfunding (and other alt publishing/funding method). I don't believe AAA is weakening, they survive by actually drinking the blood of indie's innovation to survive by tossing money at any gameplay that is easy to replicate and have some success.

[Kinaetron]

Thanks Zaphos for making my point much better than I could manage.

The things is that middle tier AAA game died, there is only a quarter of AAA studio left, but the middle tier is quickly coming back through indies and crowfunding (and other alt publishing/funding method). I don't believe AAA is weakening, they survive by actually drinking the blood of indie's innovation to survive by tossing money at any gameplay that is easy to replicate and have some success.

I do agree with this, but with the slow turnaround with games couple with the risk aversion thing, those gameplay innovations will take a long arse time to be implemented by AAA.

[gimymblert]

More thought about AAA
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=812191 (second quote)

[s0]

i think gamers are part of the problem with the AAA situation tbh. if people stopped preordering games, buying into ridiculous hype campaigns and taking metacritic seriously, the playing field would be a little more even and "lesser" games (in terms of commercial appeal) would get more of a chance.

[Graham-]

The guy has a point - Molyneux. At some point indie developers will want to go to bigger budgets.

Though he's kind of blaming his lack of innovative product on money-men.

Sinclair, to your point, the problem you are describing exists in all markets. The sheeple buy the animal-feed. So companies fight for mind share with products. Either we eliminate global ignorance, fight ourselves, or wait.

[Christian Knudsen]

The guy has a point - Molyneux. At some point indie developers will want to go to bigger budgets.

That's not really a point. That's an unsubstantiated claim. I don't think most indie developers want bigger budgets -- I think they would just like to be able to make a living doing what they're doing.

[s0]

graham:
difference is "gamers" (as in "core gamers") are "experts" in their chosen hobby and love to talk about what "critical consumers" they are

[Graham-]

The guy has a point - Molyneux. At some point indie developers will want to go to bigger budgets.

That's not really a point. That's an unsubstantiated claim. I don't think most indie developers want bigger budgets -- I think they would just like to be able to make a living doing what they're doing.

hahah.

yes, I know a lot of indie developers will stay indie at heart forever, but saying most is tricky. money changes people.

difference is "gamers" (as in "core gamers") are "experts" in their chosen hobby and love to talk about what "critical consumers" they are

oh. well, yes there is some hypocrisy there.

[Udderdude]

I'm still waiting to see this flock of angel investors, who want to swoop down and corrupt all the indies with their promises of filthy lucre.

[s0]

https://www.kickstarter.com/

[Christian Knudsen]

[Udderdude]

Kickstarter is going to ensure indie sticks around for a lot longer.  I don't see it dying down any time soon.  Maybe if the only option were angel investors, but let's face it, that hardly ever happens to begin with.

Truly the thread has come full circle.

[gimymblert]

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RaphKoster/20140507/217242/The_Financial_Future_of_Game_Developers.php

RAPH KOSTER join the race

[Graham-]

He bitches a little bit about "the man," but you know, Koster is lovable.

[gimymblert]

HUGE analysis by danc

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielCook/20140528/218659/How_art_games_are_shaped_by_economics.php

[Udderdude]

Nice analysis on making the best of what you've got ..