• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rising dev cost. Is a threat to the industry?

entremet

Member
I love this time in the hardware dev cycle. Rumors and speculation abound about the new hardware, however, if you have paying attention, this generation has not been to kind to many developers, with bigger budgets required for hd gaming. Will this be sustainable next generation?

Moreover, is the traditional loss leader model, pioneered by Sony and also shared by MS healthy? MS has the revenue from Windows, but can Sony afford another PS3?

Looking as a layman, it seems that Valve, Nintendo, and Apple seem to have healthier business models.
 
Looking at the Vita and The 360 Slim no, I don't think they'll follow the same model again. Even if MS can afford it, there's no reason to do it, Sony definitely can't afford it.

Nintendo can but I don't think they will either, the 3DS was kind of a panic move imo.
 

Durante

Member
It's interesting that you list Valve as one of the companies with a healthier business model, considering that their distribution platform runs on hardware that is inarguably the "most hd".

Anyway, after what happened these past few months my outlook on the future of gaming is brighter than ever.
 

entremet

Member
It's interesting that you list Valve as one of the companies with a healthier business model, considering that their distribution platform runs on hardware that is inarguably the "most hd".

Anyway, after what happened these past few months my outlook on the future of gaming is brighter than ever.

Well, Valve doesn't make ultra expensive boxes that are loss leaders. That helps tremendously. Plus the run their own store, much, much better than Sony and MS, with much more competitive deals.

Sony and MS are still married to the retailers and their own DD efforts are anemic compared to Valve's.
 

Orayn

Member
We'll find out soon enough.. :)

We've lost enough good devs to this generation that we don't need any further confirmation that the never ending push toward AAA blockbuster mega-hits is a destructive one.

It will only be solved by a new business model that's not as clumsy or random as high profile retail releases; an elegant distribution method, for a more civilized age.

JXrfY.png
 

JGS

Banned
Looking as a layman, it seems that Valve, Nintendo, and Apple seem to have healthier business models.
Nintendo's is unique to them though. They are the manufacturer & developer. If Nintendo had the same software development of Microsoft, they would fail since they lack the desire to truly embrace the 3rd Party - aka the competitor.
 

HylianTom

Banned
We've lost enough good devs to this generation that we don't need any further confirmation that the never ending push toward AAA blockbuster mega-hits is a destructive one.

It will only be solved by a new business model that's not as clumsy or random as high profile retail releases; an elegant distribution method, for a more civilized age.


I know. It seems pretty evident, but apparently many still have not learned. I'm more and more convinced that grown men with the business sensibilities of thirteen-year-old boys run large portions of the industry.

(and I think I'll just drop this off here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131 The closed since 2006 studios thread.)
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
No shit, this is a huge problem facing the major publishers right now and it's only going to get worse if they don't reevaluate their strategies considerably for the next gen.
 

HylianTom

Banned
And it just gets worse... If these MS rumors are true it's not going to get better anytime soon.

I dare them to follow the pied piper.
I feel bad for those folks losing their jobs, especially in this climate, but hot damn..

There are times where I'm convinced that only a true crash will cause a mass re-evaluation of priorities and business model sustainability
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
It's interesting that you list Valve as one of the companies with a healthier business model, considering that their distribution platform runs on hardware that is inarguably the "most hd".
But Valve make sure that their games are very scalable. Blizzard too. They are all about selling to a wide audience and maximizing profit potential, not going crazy chasing after tech geeks like Crytek did with the first Crysis.
It's very different to the graphics arms raced on the consoles fueled by Epic, Crytek and DICE.
Devs were worried about this last time. And the time before that. And the time...
Rightfully, if the way this gen has played out is any indication.
 

Eusis

Member
Depending on what exactly happens I do suspect we'll have a crash to some degree. I doubt we'll see the likes of 1983's again, gaming's been around too long and most will want it in some form, the question is mainly if AAA (or AAAA for fucks sake) can really be done, and I'm suspecting only a few can really do that. May well depend on if we can somehow have a reversal of budgets that WORKS.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
It's interesting that you list Valve as one of the companies with a healthier business model, considering that their distribution platform runs on hardware that is inarguably the "most hd".

Anyway, after what happened these past few months my outlook on the future of gaming is brighter than ever.

That literally has nothing to do with the loss leader model the op is speaking about. Valve was also smart enough to use their own custom engine that was much cheaper to developer for than leading middleware. Steam being on computers that are capable of "HD" has no context in this argument.
 

Dusk Golem

A 21st Century Rockefeller
Yes, and it's already evidently happening. Why do you think more studios are closing, more staff being cut loose, more projects being cancelled, and more impractical development costs are happening more and more?
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
I guess I will cut and paste the last comment I made from the last topic on this issue as well as two of the better points made by other posters.

First what Anxinamoon said.

If one is afraid of text, feel free to skip.
TL;DR. Artists are generally always wanting to do better than their last project. They always try to push push push. You give them extra resources they will take it, fill it and demand more. That's just how we are. Milk every drop.

Each company has different ways and pipelines for making assets. Figuring out a good pipeline to get a character from the concept phase to in game and working is crazy long.
I'll give you a basic pipeline from start to finish.

Concept Phase, pretty self explanatory. Batch of thumbs and designs till its whittled down to one core design.
Modeller gets that, talks to rigger/animator if there is any special needs this character might require.

Character modeller models a low poly base mesh. Passes this off to the rigger as a proxy. (if the rigger requests this for a special case)

Character Modeller then takes the base mesh to a high poly stage. This may require a re-topology stage during this (usually if they pre-planned their base mesh well or the mesh isn't very complex this isn't required). Where the they reconstruct a new base mesh with better poly flow to create a cleaner high poly.
Then character modeller gets the high checked off.

Character modeller then does a final re-topology of his high poly asset to a lower poly in game version. This is always LOD0 (highest polygon version) obviously. (this job can be palmed off to a specific artist who only handles retopologising, UV unwrapping and baking)
NB: This is the part where they will be doubling their polygon count for next gen machines.

Then comes the UV unwrapping of the low poly game mesh and packing of UV's
NB: This can take a little longer if you have more polygons to deal with. But its not so bad these days with the tools available.

Then you need your different bakes from your high poly source mesh. This can be quite a complex process if there are lots of fiddly overlapping objects on the character. Things need to be pulled apart and baked separately. Usually two maps will be baked. The normal Map and the Ambient Occlusion (AO)
You can get more like displacement, height and cavity maps baked if needed.

Then you go from there onto the texture phase. This can be handed over to a specific texture artist.
NB: This is where you may get higher texture budgets. Painting a higher res texture takes more time. Also if more maps are needed for shader tricks, then more time is spent making special case textures.

After that its setting up all the sharers for the character. Depending on your shader pipeline (something that is worked together between tech artist/FX artist and code)
Then once this has been done the rigger then gets the model.
NB: Shader complexity may increase for the artist to hook up. But this is all dependant on the specific shader pipeline of your engine.

The character modeller then makes the needed LOD's for that character.

The rigger or Tech character artist, sets up all the final rigs and controls. Usually sets up the collision and all the technical gizmos that are needed like Sockets and code controls.
NB: Next gen machines may allow more bones per chunk. So this may add more time in the rigging phase to set up.

Then this is passed over to the animator for animation. Blends, animations and all that.
Then the animations need to be hooked up to the game design and code. So we can say when SPACE BAR is pressed, character plays Jump animation. ect ect.
NB: With more bones per chunk, Animators may need to spend longer amounts of time animating (Yes there is mo-cap which has its own stupid crap to deal with. cleaning up keyframes.. bleh. Also it can't be used for lets say, a crazy squid monster of doom). Though I am not an animator, so I'm only talking from observation.)

Then the character is finally in the game.

Wow finally its in the game! Oh shit... what happens when, for example, you show this to the publisher and he decides you character needs to wear a cloak? Then you have to dismantle the pipeline back to the modelling phase to add the cloak. the rigger/character tech artist then needs to re bake weights and add the new bones and re rig the bastard. Then the animator needs to add all these cloak animations to his existing animations.

One fuckup or one change can bring the whole pipeline to its knees. The more complex it is the harder the pipeline crashes.

Do this times X number of characters in a game. It can add up.

Now environments that's a different story. You usually only need to do up to the collision part. (Unless you had to make a complex prop with animation of course) We need to make collision meshes (soooo boring) and try to find new ways of saving drawcalls while adding more to a scene. Environments of course need a variety of shaders for different materials and different shaders on the one object also means more drawcalls. For example a tree will need two shaders because wood behaves differently than leaves. Its a discipline quite different from characters but takes just as long because the basic process is the same with the baking and the source models.

NB: Artists are generally always wanting to do better than their last project. They always try to push push push. You give them extra resources they will take it, fill it and demand more. That's just how we are. Milk every drop. If a frame rate is shitty in a game its because the artists pushed too hard expecting code to keep up. :p

For reference I have been both a character and environment artist for a next gen single player game utilising unreal engine 3 and also a next gen MMO. The pipeline I described was what I used when making characters for the single player unreal3 game.
 

Orayn

Member
Depending on what exactly happens I do suspect we'll have a crash to some degree. I doubt we'll see the likes of 1983's again, gaming's been around too long and most will want it in some form, the question is mainly if AAA (or AAAA for fucks sake) can really be done, and I'm suspecting only a few can really do that. May well depend on if we can somehow have a reversal of budgets that WORKS.

I'm hoping that some relatively well-liked studio has an epiphany next gen and nixes an AAA project to self-publish a game with a smaller budget, $30-40 price point, shorter development cycle, and conservative retail release with day-one digital availability. If that happens with the right game, it could open a lot of eyes.
 
Just look at the last gen. Huge amounts of companies have either a) self-destructed b) completely lost their way or c) lost massive amounts of money chasing the HD dollar. The most successful companies, with the possible exception of Activision, have largely stayed away from the graphics arms-race.
 

Hiltz

Member
Developers: We want more console power!

* 2-3 years later *

Developers: Why are so many of us getting laid off? Why are our companies going bankrupt?

Suda 51: Damn it ! Someone buy my artistic games.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Next here is what Margalis said and my response about what kind of obstacles may exist to resolving these issues.

I feel like everything you said is right, yet your argument as a whole is wrong.

New hardware is not just going to give you bigger textures and higher vertex counts, it's also going to give you new techniques. A lot of the time spent this gen is in making high-res models so you can bake normal maps - before normal maps existed this wasn't an issue.

New hardware is going to create a new breed of normal-maps. Maybe now you'll need to create maps for parallax on every surface, or maps for a different lighting model that is closer to BRDF. Maybe you'll need to do something to take advantage of things like geometry shaders and other DX 10 & 11 features. Maybe megatextures become the norm and now you need to uniquely texture everything. Maybe you'll be painting a texture that represents the rigidity of cloth.

I cant say for sure what those things are, but I'm relatively certain they are going to exist. Smart programmers will come up with new rendering (and other) techniques that require new inputs. This is why every engine created that supposedly scales forward has not actually scaled forward - if you take an engine from 10 years ago that can scale up it doesn't look as good as an engine from today because more has changed than just hardware power.

It's quite possible that the tasks you do today might get a bit faster, but it's also highly probable that you'll have new tasks.

---

IMO costs are always going to increase, unless developers make a conscious decision not to keep up with Joneses and move diagonally ahead instead of straight ahead. For example if you look at Journey, the focus there is on sand and clothing simulation, scene construction and cinematography (for lack of a better term), image quality, etc. It's not on normal mapping or super high polygon hands. It's like 2001 to Transformers - the former has superior shots and scene composition, the latter throws a bunch of technically advanced shit all over the screen. If you want to out-Transformers Transformers you have to spend more, because spending on effects is the essence of Transformers. That doesn't mean you can't make a better or even better looking movie.

Similarly if you want to create a "AAAA" game that's better than rival AAA games that largely boils down to spending more on production. If that is your goal then costs aren't going to go down almost by definition.

Movie production costs haven't gone down, even though CGI has replaced practical effects and new tools and processing power have made CGI theoretically easier and cheaper over time. I'm sure every time some new CGI tool comes out somebody says "this will probably bring down costs" but that has never actually happened.
My response
Shaheed79 said:
Well put. I completely agree with this. With new technology comes new ways to spend money in order to make use of that technology.

Margalis did a good job in explaining why dev costs will always increase as more powerful hardware becomes available. That is unless the development part of the industry makes a conscious decision not to spend themselves out of business.

I have a bad feeling that voicing such concerns, at a developer forum like GDC, and suggesting a budget discipline style solution, that would demand participation from game developers, publishers and middleware developers alike, is generally frowned upon.

I would almost compare the conflict that exists, within the game industry, to that of the oil/coal industry vs. renewable and green energy alternatives. The parties who are most benefiting, from the money and positions of power made off of selling oil, wish to slow down, if not completely halt, the transition to more practical, independent, safer and cheaper means of energy. As long as there is oil to drill, those vested parties will do whatever it takes to ensure they can continue to milk that particular source of energy. They wish to do this for as long as possible but with complete disregard to the potentially negative effect it will have on the economy and the environment.

Of course this example is exponentially more serious to the subject of games but the premise is still the same. The parties involved within different aspects of video gaming, whom benefit the most from driving technology forward, do not wish to slow down the advancement of visual progress just to help developers to better stabilize their development costs. I do not believe that their viewpoint is right or wrong, but we have seen the negative results of this kind of focus. This manner of modus operandi is currently unsustainable in the interest of developing video games.

I am not suggesting that AMD, IBM, Intel and Nvidia slow down the progress of technology. The problem isn't with them. The problem is in how the industry continues to choose to use that technology. Right now, the preferred way of using more powerful technology commands a high possibility of leading to another industry crash.

I personally do not look forward to a future, in gaming, where only small and inexpensive Facebook, ios and indie games will survive. I like and enjoy those kind of games but do not wish to depend on them.

Imho, the people who sit atop of making these kind of decisions, for the game development part of the industry, are being bullish if they assume that this is not a realistic possibility. If game budgets are not put into check, across the board, starting at the development tool level, then we can almost guarantee this current model being unsustainable. (That is just a polite way of saying "the industry will most certainly crash".)
 
Spectacle sells, what can I say? This has always been the biggest reason for new hardware/processors-gfx cards: they allow bigger badder looking games. Thing is, spectacle's return on investment has to be shrinking, but again, it's what sells big titles.

Will the public at large (ourselves as Gaffers included) permit ourselves to buy a single A title instead of a AAAA, though? There's the rub, for generations we've been used to "bigger, better, badder", to diet like that, especially with so many games going a spectacle-laden tour de force route that would make Kojima puke rainbows, is it actually possible short of every AAAA series bombaing and there IS no AAAA to buy?

I'm hoping that some relatively well-liked studio has an epiphany next gen nixes an AAA project to self-publish a game with a smaller budget, $30-40 price point, shorter development cycle, and conservative retail release with day-one digital availability. If that happens with the right game, it could open a lot of eyes.

$40-$50 price point, actually. I'm wary of the mid/mid-high card game having such a low ceiling like that. Gameplay, good times, and atmosphere selling and all that.
 

entremet

Member
Spectacle sells, what can I say? This has always been the biggest reason for new hardware/processors-gfx cards: they allow bigger badder looking games. Thing is, spectacle's return on investment has to be shrinking, but again, it's what sells big titles.

Will the public at large (ourselves as Gaffers included) permit ourselves to buy a single A title instead of a AAAA, though? There's the rub, for generations we've been used to "bigger, better, badder", to diet like that, especially with so many games going a spectacle-laden tour de force route that would make Kojima puke rainbows, is it actually possible short of every AAAA series bombaing and there IS no AAAA to buy?



$40-$50 price point, actually. I'm wary of the mid/mid-high card game having such a low ceiling like that. Gameplay, good times, and atmosphere selling and all that.

I don't know but with last generation, I started to spend more money on varied software experiences outside of the AAA title--PSN, XBLA, XBLIG, iOS.
 

conman

Member
We've lost enough good devs to this generation that we don't need any further confirmation that the never ending push toward AAA blockbuster mega-hits is a destructive one.
"Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows . . . The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce." -Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, "The Culture Industry"

I'd like to believe that people are smart enough to start recognizing "rubbish" when they see it. Rising costs are ultimately self destructive, and I hope that talented developers have long since found alternatives to big productions.
 

antonz

Member
The real issue is as the top end increases in costs to develop it also drags the low end up with it. This makes the niche developers etc the ones in the greatest danger because now it costs them more to make their niche titles and the ROI begins to vanish as costs go up
 

Eusis

Member
Also, these responses make me think that while the general trend for developers is to keep pushing hardware for more detail and effects... maybe it IS about time they instead focus on 1080p/60FPS for games. You only get that by not being technically demanding (or at least not so much you seriously strain the hardware), and that may well inherently limit budgets. At least unless they're dumb and just blow it to get a few popular actors in or get what popular actors they have to voice even more for the game rather than getting offed in the first fifteen minutes like Patrick Stewart in Oblivion.


It's a threat to the high-dev cost industry.

Not the industry as a whole, no.
The problem is they're VERY CLOSE to being one and the same. Sure, Facebook, indie, and iOS games escape that, but they can have their own issues (iOS has VERY cheap software, iOS and Facebook both depend on "Freemium", and indie's generally way more limited in scope), while on consoles if it's at retail it's USUALLY those high dev-cost games, and the ones that are below that are progessively getting shoved out, just look at how Xseed is going more to DD for their games. At the least we may see a near-total collapse of the console industry, with only Nintendo likely to survive.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
I think you guys are getting too caught up in this A, B and AAA label nonsense. An HD games textures, models and animation do not know that they are only in a B game and not a AAA game. Their ever increasing production costs has no bias.

The average cost of next generation games will largely reflect the abilities of next generation middleware. If a game, not unlike Gears of War, is presented and advertised as the "status quo" of what next generation can achieve on the leading middleware, then developers will shoot for that high mark. In a way they will be forced to, if they are making a game within a similar scope and genre as other games, that have already set the new visual standard.
 
For console games based around high-production values, sure. Those types of games may get less and less creative and have more nickle-and-diming as costs increase and many developers fold. I think a lot of the former big developers will go to making downloadable games for PC, so it won't be a major issue in gaming quality overall.
 
No shit, this is a huge problem facing the major publishers right now and it's only going to get worse if they don't reevaluate their strategies considerably for the next gen.

The key word here is major publishers. I mean it seems the current AAA or bust business strategy is unsustainable, but the truth is there are way, way more sources of games these days that I don't think an industry wide apocalyptic crash is possible. A crash of the AAA $60 HD game sector and even the $40 handheld game market? I would not be shocked at all. It's pretty clear a lot of the creativity has been squeezed out of mass market game development.

But there are so many god damn games out there now on every conceivable device that I don't think games will die. My big fear is whether or not the mass market will continue to buy games if the top of the market crashes.

It's just seems so weird that in this industry looking forward it's either/or. In the film industry big budget summer blockbusters co-exist with smaller films at the box office. With the game industry, console-wise, it's Michael Bay or bust. If that strategy implodes publishers only have themselves to blame.
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
The key word here is major publishers. I mean it seems the current AAA or bust business strategy is unsustainable, but the truth is there are way, way more sources of games these days that I don't think an industry wide apocalyptic crash is possible. A crash of the AAA $60 HD game sector and even the $40 handheld game market? I would not be shocked at all. It's pretty clear a lot of the creativity has been squeezed out of mass market game development.

But there are so many god damn games out there now on every conceivable device that I don't think games will die. My big fear is whether or not the mass market will continue to buy games if the top of the market crashes.
I agree. Games obviously aren't going to die, and indie and iOS development is going to go on (though the latter is not immune from a hypothetical eventual decline), but a crash in the 'AAA' console sector would still be absolutely massive and its ramifications would be far reaching.
It's just seems so weird that in this industry looking forward it's either/or. In the film industry big budget summer blockbusters co-exist with smaller films at the box office. With the game industry, console-wise, it's Michael Bay or bust. If that strategy implodes publishers only have themselves to blame.
The problem is that a lot of the time costs of the 'middle class' games far exceed the sales revenue they generate. Casuals only buy a few 'AAA' games every year and the AAA games win the battle for their dollars every time. I'm sure we'd see a film market of only indie watch-on-demand releases and megablockbusters if movie tickets were $60.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
On the other side of the coin, a lot of developers and publishers go out of business because their important releases don't cause any excitement or generate any interest, regardless of the budget. The longer this generation drags on the more samey the new games are going to be. I think it's time for a shakeup, and new consoles make good platforms for new IP.
 
I agree. Games obviously aren't going to die, and indie and iOS development is going to go on (though the latter is not immune from a hypothetical eventual decline), but a crash in the 'AAA' console sector would still be absolutely massive and its ramifications would be far reaching.

The problem is that a lot of the time costs of the 'middle class' games far exceed the sales revenue they generate. Casuals only buy a few 'AAA' games every year and he AAA games win the battle for their dollars every time. I'm sure we'd see a film market of only indie watch-on-demand releases and megablockbusters if movie tickets were $60.

This was what I was trying to say actually. My big fear is what effect the AAA market crashing would have on the rest of the industry? Would even the likes of, say, Steam still be able to exist and be profitable if the library consisted of smaller games and a user base of 4 million or so? What if a AAA crash took even smaller, $10-$15 games with it? What if only games like Fruit Ninja and Angry Birds were seen as profitable?

I'm just worried when people think if the AAA market crashed that it would have no effect on the rest of the industry. I'm probably too paranoid though.
 

Eusis

Member
If those costs are transferred to the consumer, then yes.
To be honest, I half expect a rise to $90, while chasing people off, would ultimately be what the industry needs to survive as the profit per copy would vault ahead. Of course you absolutely can't block off used sales, otherwise people REALLY won't be eager to buy those games.
A crash of the AAA $60 HD game sector and even the $40 handheld game market? I would not be shocked at all. It's pretty clear a lot of the creativity has been squeezed out of mass market game development.
I fear the death of handhelds FAR more than AAA games. Not because I think they'd survive (obviously not given my prior posts), but because more of what I'd like to play manages to come out on handhelds. It's also probably the one safe area for games hovering in the middle still, technological constraints mean they need to be PS1-PS2 in technical capability, maybe even spruced up 16-bit, and thus a wider variety is sustainable. Seeing THAT vanish in favor of very cheap iOS games would be very disheartening.
This was what I was trying to say actually. My big fear is what effect the AAA market crashing would have on the rest of the industry? Would even the likes of, say, Steam still be able to exist and be profitable if the library consisted of smaller games and a user base of 4 million or so? What if a AAA crash took even smaller, $10-$15 games with it? What if only games like Fruit Ninja and Angry Birds were seen as profitable?

I'm just worried when people think if the AAA market crashed that it would have no effect on the rest of the industry. I'm probably too paranoid though.
There's probably going to be some blowback, though I EXPECT Nintendo would survive it. They don't prioritize blowing budgets on each game, and their hardware normally sells at a profit, plus they have brands that appeal to both casual and core audiences so I expect it'd be reset to the NES or something, rather than all the way back to the 83 crash. Except in this case the indie market takes the place of the PC market the 80s had.
 

Orayn

Member
I know so many devs have failed we barely have any games to play....oh wait.

I will shed no tears over the passing of Westwood because I can play still play Call of Honor: Warbattle Shootmans and pay $50 a year for the Shootmans Super Secret Special Ops pass that lets me buy the $15 map packs a week early.
 
Top Bottom