hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Ok so you're trolling and we're wasting our time. Thanks for everything.
-
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.
EA & Ubisoft should both have a 7 year IP
- Thread starter gafneo
- Start date
I for one would love to see frozen bytes and pyschic engines. Can't wait for the Miss Cleo sims!
If they spent 7 years on one massive product, those years would be divided amongst the company. I'm taking that one game sharing assets and resources for all their libraries. It would cut time for those other projects because the quality is already there.
robertsan21
Member
there is non.. BUT they will never get an IP like that unless they try and EA and Ubisoft aint fucking trying.
They been dishing out half finished games for year and I have stopped buying games from them. Its fucking trash!
Look what Nintendo did with Zelda Breath of the wild, this game is one of the best games ever, around 5 years dev time maybe?
SlipperyFishes
Banned
That's... not what you said. You're now talking about making multiple games with the same assets over seven years.
That's kinda what FromSoft do with their assets, reusing some from Bloodborne for DS3 except you do realise that people get turned off by what they see as "lazy dev" syndrome.
You're also needing to guarantee quality and interest from the first game onwards.
ClosingADoor
Member
This already happens. If a series is not profitable anymore, they move on or rethink the series. See Assassin's Creed at the moment as a good example.
Diminishing returns....
There is only so much money and manpower that could make a game fun. Look at Duke Nukem Forever, FFXV, BotW, Last Guardian, or any other game with a very long development cycle.... It's not the length of development which makes those games fun or not fun.
If you don't nail the concept early on and stay true to the vision, then more money and time would not make a game a blockbuster. Adding more, and more, and more to a game for years just to increase the spectacle doesn't really change or enhance the product like you think it would. Yes, it can add polish, but the team has to decide very early on what the game will look like and commit to it. There's only so many unique things you can do with a core concept such that 7 years makes sense to keep adding stuff.
There's also no reason to turn 30 hour games into 200 hour games. Chances are, the first 30 hours will be far more fun than the last 170. And if you really inject enough variety into your game such that each 50 hour increment in a 200 hour epic is truly distinct and different, then it may be best to divide up those chapters into several games anyway.
There is only so much money and manpower that could make a game fun. Look at Duke Nukem Forever, FFXV, BotW, Last Guardian, or any other game with a very long development cycle.... It's not the length of development which makes those games fun or not fun.
If you don't nail the concept early on and stay true to the vision, then more money and time would not make a game a blockbuster. Adding more, and more, and more to a game for years just to increase the spectacle doesn't really change or enhance the product like you think it would. Yes, it can add polish, but the team has to decide very early on what the game will look like and commit to it. There's only so many unique things you can do with a core concept such that 7 years makes sense to keep adding stuff.
There's also no reason to turn 30 hour games into 200 hour games. Chances are, the first 30 hours will be far more fun than the last 170. And if you really inject enough variety into your game such that each 50 hour increment in a 200 hour epic is truly distinct and different, then it may be best to divide up those chapters into several games anyway.
You have yet to actually answer why they would do any of this.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Final Fantasy XV and The Last Guardian? Two games that spent a considerable amount of time in development hell. Unless you're thinking of others?
Fug Slanderson
Member
7 years sounds like too much, but I do agree that every developer that can afford it should be working on at least 1 game that takes up to that long if necessary, because if you look at the games that did take ages to develop and that had massive budgets, they turned out to be some of the best games of all time and more than made their money back.
Let's look at a few examples. Zelda BOTW took 5 years I believe, and now it's one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time and is selling like hotcakes (as well as driving sales of the Switch). Clearly spending 5 years on it paid off big time.
Horizon Zero Dawn too 6 years I think, and because it was allowed to be worked on until the developers were satisfied, the end product was incredible and has sold close to 3 million copies already.
GTA 5 took 5 years or so and has sold something like 50 million copies or something insane like that.
I mean, it just seems like if a talented developer is allowed the time and resources to make the best game they can make then the final product will be amazing. It will review and sell very well and make a shitload of money. It makes a lot more sense to me to allow games to be worked on longer rather than prematurely releasing something that just has potential.
Let's look at a few examples. Zelda BOTW took 5 years I believe, and now it's one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time and is selling like hotcakes (as well as driving sales of the Switch). Clearly spending 5 years on it paid off big time.
Horizon Zero Dawn too 6 years I think, and because it was allowed to be worked on until the developers were satisfied, the end product was incredible and has sold close to 3 million copies already.
GTA 5 took 5 years or so and has sold something like 50 million copies or something insane like that.
I mean, it just seems like if a talented developer is allowed the time and resources to make the best game they can make then the final product will be amazing. It will review and sell very well and make a shitload of money. It makes a lot more sense to me to allow games to be worked on longer rather than prematurely releasing something that just has potential.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Drunk thread?
Seriously, what
Seriously, what
chrominance
Member
I'm sure if you rolled up to a publisher and said "I can give you a game that is guaranteed 100% to be as good and sell as well as GTA, just give me seven years," most of them would say no because that LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST AS AN OPTION.
Nothing is a guarantee and big gaming publishers are risk-averse. In this case, rightfully so. You're asking them to bet it all on the Homer.
Nothing is a guarantee and big gaming publishers are risk-averse. In this case, rightfully so. You're asking them to bet it all on the Homer.
And then if and when it fails, watch as people start losing jobs.
Nevermind the fact that this black cheque is paid for by someone i.e. the shareholders, and it'd be literally the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet because why would they pay for something they get no returns in ?
joeygreco1985
Member
The finger thing means the taxes!
Pestilence11
Member
Do stores really get that much? I always assumed they got very little on $59.99 games.
Mass Effect
Member
Battlefield? Battlefront? The Division?
I believe they do in fact get very little from new games, stores make most of their money from used games.
It doesn't matter how long they take on a game, it will still be buggy. Bug free is not a thing.
And also you are advocating for business over art when you say "none gender or age target specific." Art...true art takes a position and has a perspective and has emotions and themes that it explores. It's impossible for it to be some universal, formless putty like you seem to want them to put out. Art can exist in business and frankly giving artists no boundaries results in very poor art. Creators tend to go off the rails when they lose the shackles of businessing. Think of George Lucas or the Wachowskis where they got all the time and money they needed and it made for WORSE experiences.
There is a very, very fine balance between giving the artist enough boundaries to keep them on track and so few boundaries that they lose their way.
And also you are advocating for business over art when you say "none gender or age target specific." Art...true art takes a position and has a perspective and has emotions and themes that it explores. It's impossible for it to be some universal, formless putty like you seem to want them to put out. Art can exist in business and frankly giving artists no boundaries results in very poor art. Creators tend to go off the rails when they lose the shackles of businessing. Think of George Lucas or the Wachowskis where they got all the time and money they needed and it made for WORSE experiences.
There is a very, very fine balance between giving the artist enough boundaries to keep them on track and so few boundaries that they lose their way.
No, stores get less than that, but manufacturing, shipping, distribution costs, platform holder's cut, etc. take a lot out of it as well.
Name me one that put in as much effort into the game...
I mean Bethesda also puts a lot of years of work into their games and come out well for it too (yes, I know you people love to snipe on Bethesda but their games do sell well and they do spend a lot of time making them). And Horizon was a 6/7 year product.
I think the theme here is spend time to make the product good pays off.
So then why in the ever-living fuck would you make a game that has a 7 year Dev cycle, if the shape of the industry will have dramatically changed from conception to release?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Mass Effect
Member
There is no such thing as bug-free software.
Lol... they sold that much on 5 different platforms over the past ~4 years. If devs had 7 years for their project... it would be such a mess to find the right timing to start and to end the project.
If you start the project mid-gen, chances are when you release your game during the new gen, the game's engine and tools will be outdated.
If you release your game at the beginning of a new gen, chances are when you release your game, the sales of the game will be greatly affected (unless you push the marketing, see Watch Dogs as reference). As people will slowly transitioned to the next gen.
Lol... Horizon 4 or 5 years top. They went full production on Horizon after Killzone Shadow Fall release, which was in 2013. Rumors about them working on a new IP appeared in 2013, same year as the release of the PS4.
Pestilence11
Member
Thanks. That's more what I was thinking.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
I have to mention, but just because a creator have complete creative freedom, does not guarantee that you'll have an amazing product at the end of it.
Even the best of minds can fail.
Even the best of minds can fail.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Also, op what you're asking is usually seen only on First parties like Sony and Nintendo because even if the final product doesn't sell as well as they would hope, it's something that would increase the portfolio of their consoles.
First parties take the risk while third parties make the blockbusters.
First parties take the risk while third parties make the blockbusters.
Horizon was 4 or 5 years. Rumors about them working on a new ip started the same year the ps4 came out in 2013. Bethesda spends a lot of time on their games but I don't think they have ever worked on a game for more than 5 years either. Oblivion was about 5 years and so was Skyrim. Fallout 4 was 4 was 5 years as well. 6 or 7 years is probably too long. Tech changes would change too much during that time and might make your game outdated.
The Cartographer
Member
ROFLMAO
Slammin_Hammon
Member
Asking devs and publishers to take this kind of risk on and saying that some people will lose and others will win with the cream rising to the top is silly. Would you gamble with your own livelihood like that? This isn't a scenario where the losers learn some lessons and come back to work on Monday more motivated than ever.
Seven years, if taken literally, is a bit much, but i do feel 3-5 years should be the minimum. watch dogs was 5 years and i think the division was 3. Destiny was 4. My issue is that i feel the yearly releases cannibalize the potential sales of the franchise. If you look at Mario kart, smash bros, gta, destiny, etc, they sale SO much because they are given time to. This would give them time to let the game make as much money as they can, while have a small team work on DLC and the main team work on the next iteration
. I think this way would also work, because they can use the DLC as testing grounds for what could be used for the sequel. When all is said in done then rerelease it back at full retail or maybe a little below with all the dlc for one more resurgence of sales. then release a sequel.
Like if i still played COD i would never buy a map back because i'd just wait for the next game, or i'd skip the next game and just do the dlc. But i may be the minority.
. I think this way would also work, because they can use the DLC as testing grounds for what could be used for the sequel. When all is said in done then rerelease it back at full retail or maybe a little below with all the dlc for one more resurgence of sales. then release a sequel.
Like if i still played COD i would never buy a map back because i'd just wait for the next game, or i'd skip the next game and just do the dlc. But i may be the minority.
john romero did this in the 90's, but he also vacuumed up one of the best video game designers ever and most of looking glass studios at the peak of quality
Mega Caprison
Member
You're kidding right? The Division sell more than 15 million copy? I doubt it
ShockingAlberto
Member
Yes, a seven year development cycle will help ward off hostile takeovers.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll