Support NeoGAF

[Dark-Cloudz]

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make here, it seems different than your first post and this is really incoherent. First you said that most single player AAA games are under 10 hours long, which I asked what specifically you were talking about and you didn't answer (I guess you may have been referring to games like Call of Duty, but that's ignoring the fact that the campaign is like a third of the available content in any COD, so that's not really fair.)

But now you seem to be speaking to a different point, that budgets may or may not have gone up as much as people think because there were in fact older games that cost a lot of money (which, duh).

To be clear, I'm not, and never have been, in favor of predatory micro transactions. Clearly that blows. I'm just saying that I'm going to withhold my judgment until I see for sure if they're implemented in a way that hampers my enjoyment of the game. And maybe they are! And that would suck. But none of us can say that for sure yet, and the devs sure do be trying to get out there and say they won't. Maybe that will blow up in their face and they'll be called out as liars, but I'm not going to just lose my fucking mind at the sheer thought of it yet, because I have played and enjoyed MANY games that have micro-transactions without spending a dime.

You're right - a lot of what I said was incoherent. I guess I'll try and re-explain:

- Games are not necessarily longer and more content rich now, than they were in the past (something you implied in your first post I quoted from a few pages back) Mirror's Edge, Life is Strange and a few others are pretty short for a full retail game. There are short and long games throughout the generations. Games 'back then' are not necessarily '10%' of modern games' content.

- Budgets haven't gone up - which I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) was a justification you were making for these games having micro-transactions? Longer games don't necessarily cost more money to develop.

Someone near your quote talked about SOM costing 100 times more to develop than 90s games and using that as reasoning for loot boxes. I was simply explaining the absurdity of that statement.

 

[chaos789]

These responses from Monolith about microtransactions and loot boxes etc, seem like answers that were generated by a PR firm to distract from answering the actual questions. In other words deflect because there is no actual legtimate reason to have microtransactions in a $60 game.

This is all coming from WB and its not like Monolith can bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[killroy87]

You're right - a lot of what I said was incoherent. I guess I'll try and re-explain:

- Games are not necessarily longer and more content rich now, than they were in the past (something you implied in your first post I quoted from a few pages back) Mirrors Edge, Life is Strange and a few others are pretty short for a full retail game. There are short and long games throughout the generations. Games 'back then' are not necessarily '10%' of modern games content.

- Budgets haven't gone up - which I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) was a justification you were making for these games having micro-transactions? Longer games don't necessarily cost more money to develop.

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it

To your first point, I generally just disagree. I genuinely do think, on average, $60 gets me more now than it did 15-20 years ago. Obviously that's not a science, and as you mentioned, there are outliers on both sides all over the place, but I'm speaking on average. Comparing Shadow of Mordor to a Civilization or an Age of Empires will obviously skew the perception, but compare it to your standard full price action adventure games from back then? There's more game there. Not just in a standard playthrough, but in terms of variety of content, reasons to replay a game, etc, I think the industry has made major strides in giving the consumer their $60 worth. A big reason for this is due a trend I'll mention below.

(And sidenote: Mirrors Edge was indeed a short game, which was reflected in reviews and poor sales. But Life Is Strange wasn't full retail, it cost like $25-30, I can't remember exactly)

To your second point, I also still think the average price to make a game has gone up considerably. They are more technically complicated, and require bigger teams than they did 15-20 years ago (and all those people are paid more due to higher cost of living), so sheer math would dictate it costs more to pay a larger team. I promise you it took more people, and more money, to make FFXV than Chrono Trigger or FF7. I don't have numbers by my side, but I promise you it did.

A big reason budgets have gone up is because major release games have largely drifted towards keeping players in for longer amounts of time. It's not enough to just make a solid 10 hour campaign and charge $60 for it, audiences expect more now. That's why games like Uncharted and Last of Us bring in multiplayer. It adds value, and keeps people playing (and hopefully, with DLC, keeps people paying). And doing that requires more people to work on a game for longer amounts of time, which costs more money.

The Wiki chart you linked to is flawed for a number of reasons, but a big one is that it doesn't consider that the budgets for games these days just continue to grow as the game lives on. For example, the numbers for GTAV are just a snapshot, probably of just post launch. GTAV has been steadily adding content since release, and substantial content at that. All that requires people, which costs money. Are they making massive amounts of money as well? Yeah, obviously, they're a business, and GTA Online is riddled with micro transactions. But in order to make all that money, they need to also spend a lot of money to keep players engaged.

Are there still smaller budgets games that make a lot of money? Yeah, obviously. But this discussion is about AAA games, and budgets for those have 100% gone up.

 

[Renegade Frost]

Read the OP. Lol, what bullshit. You could just implement an even easier mode. You are under WB and they want to make as much money as they can. Stop trying to bullshitting people with excuses from a decade ago.

"Our game is not worth playing so here you can buy a shortcut", is what you are saying.

Edit: I literally never ever heard of a person or read about it that said, "I have no time so I will buy this to get through it faster". Like, never.

Who died and you made you king?

This is a horrible response dude

Remember when free cheat codes were a thing? If people wanted to get to the "good stuff" fast you would put in a cheat code or unlock it in-game, or even share save files.

Now instead of digging out your cheat notebook, it's digging out your debit/credit card and giving them unnecessary money.

This industry now, disgusting.

Why are you so entitled? Its really disgusting behavior

"How can I twist and sugarcoat this without admitting that it's just pure greed..? ��"

Shame on you

 

[Vashu]

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it

To your first point, I generally just disagree. I genuinely do think, on average, $60 gets me more now than it did 15-20 years ago. Obviously that's not a science, and as you mentioned, there are outliers on both sides all over the place, but I'm speaking on average. Comparing Shadow of Mordor to a Civilization or an Age of Empires will obviously skew the perception, but compare it to your standard full price action adventure games from back then? There's more game there. Not just in a standard playthrough, but in terms of variety of content, reasons to replay a game, etc, I think the industry has made major strides in giving the consumer their $60 worth. A big reason for this is due a trend I'll mention below.

(And sidenote: Mirrors Edge was indeed a short game, which was reflected in reviews and poor sales. But Life Is Strange wasn't full retail, it cost like $25-30, I can't remember exactly)

To your second point, I also still think the average price to make a game has gone up considerably. They are more technically complicated, and require bigger teams than they did 15-20 years ago (and all those people are paid more due to higher cost of living), so sheer math would dictate it costs more to pay a larger team. I promise you it took more people, and more money, to make FFXV than Chrono Trigger or FF7. I don't have numbers by my side, but I promise you it did.

A big reason budgets have gone up is because major release games have largely drifted towards keeping players in for longer amounts of time. It's not enough to just make a solid 10 hour campaign and charge $60 for it, audiences expect more now. That's why games like Uncharted and Last of Us bring in multiplayer. It adds value, and keeps people playing (and hopefully, with DLC, keeps people paying). And doing that requires more people to work on a game for longer amounts of time, which costs more money.

The Wiki chart you linked to is flawed for a number of reasons, but a big one is that it doesn't consider that the budgets for games these days just continue to grow as the game lives on. For example, the numbers for GTAV are just a snapshot, probably of just post launch. GTAV has been steadily adding content since release, and substantial content at that. All that requires people, which costs money. Are they making massive amounts of money as well? Yeah, obviously, they're a business, and GTA Online is riddled with micro transactions. But in order to make all that money, they need to also spend a lot of money to keep players engaged.

Are there still smaller budgets games that make a lot of money? Yeah, obviously. But this discussion is about AAA games, and budgets for those have 100% gone up.

Until you take a look at the costs of Final Fantasy VII (45 Million Dollars) and Horizon: Zero Dawn (47 Million Dollars) which are both AAA games. By your definition, Horizon should've been close to 90 or 100 Million dollars, but it just isn't.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 46 Million Dollars, and yet there is way more content there than in a Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

How come those games still have late 90s development costs? Why is there such a huge discrepancy when it comes to the big publishers and clearly AAA development studios like Guerrilla and CD Projekt Red?

Clearly there's no 100% increase for all the AAA titles that have come out in recent years.

With careful planning, publishers can save a lot of money and not try to get more money with micro-transactions that are causing an issue right now. If "small" studios like the two I mentioned before can do it, why not a major publisher like WB, or 2K?

PS: Don't forget that the total development costs for FFXV will be WAY higher because it's been in development hell for years. This adds a lot to the total costs as it might've had many different iterations before we ended up with what it is now.

 

[killroy87]

Until you take a look at the costs of Final Fantasy VII (45 Million Dollars) and Horizon: Zero Dawn (47 Million Dollars) which are both AAA games. By your definition, Horizon should've been close to 90 or 100 Million dollars, but it just isn't.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 46 Million Dollars, and yet there is way more content there than in a Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

How come those games still have late 90s development costs? Why is there such a huge discrepancy when it comes to the big publishers and clearly AAA development studios like Guerrilla and CD Projekt Red?

Clearly there's no 100% increase for all the AAA titles that have come out in recent years.

With careful planning, publishers can save a lot of money and not try to get more money with micro-transactions that are causing an issue right now. If "small" studios like the two I mentioned before can do it, why not a major publisher like WB, or 2K?

I honestly don't have the business plan of every game from every dev, I can't answer your questions with any accuracy. Maybe every game ever could be made for $40 mil, I dunno. GTA cost well over $100 mil, did it waste $60 million too? The wiki page for The Witcher 3 states a development budget of $70-80 million with an additional $25-35 mil in Marketing, so again, I wouldn't trust that initial Wiki budget list.

I dunno. But I stand by my opinions that AAA games cost more now than they did back then.

If you're insinuating that some devs/pubs are mismanaging money, I mean probably? But I'm nowhere near well enough equipped to tackle that subject, so I'd prefer not to just throw blame around.

 

[lazygecko]

Until you take a look at the costs of Final Fantasy VII (45 Million Dollars) and Horizon: Zero Dawn (47 Million Dollars) which are both AAA games. By your definition, Horizon should've been close to 90 or 100 Million dollars, but it just isn't.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 46 Million Dollars, and yet there is way more content there than in a Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

How come those games still have late 90s development costs? Why is there such a huge discrepancy when it comes to the big publishers and clearly AAA development studios like Guerrilla and CD Projekt Red?

Clearly there's no 100% increase for all the AAA titles that have come out in recent years.

With careful planning, publishers can save a lot of money and not try to get more money with micro-transactions that are causing an issue right now. If "small" studios like the two I mentioned before can do it, why not a major publisher like WB, or 2K?

PS: Don't forget that the total development costs for FFXV will be WAY higher because it's been in development hell for years. This adds a lot to the total costs as it might've had many different iterations before we ended up with what it is now.

I've read conspiracy theories that the reckless budget bloating has been a deliberate business strategy in an arms race to outspend the competition and push out lesser publishers who cannot keep up financially, like THQ and all the other casualties throughout the last generation.

Honestly, I can believe it.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Until you take a look at the costs of Final Fantasy VII (45 Million Dollars) and Horizon: Zero Dawn (47 Million Dollars) which are both AAA games. By your definition, Horizon should've been close to 90 or 100 Million dollars, but it just isn't.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 46 Million Dollars, and yet there is way more content there than in a Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

How come those games still have late 90s development costs? Why is there such a huge discrepancy when it comes to the big publishers and clearly AAA development studios like Guerrilla and CD Projekt Red?

Clearly there's no 100% increase for all the AAA titles that have come out in recent years.

With careful planning, publishers can save a lot of money and not try to get more money with micro-transactions that are causing an issue right now. If "small" studios like the two I mentioned before can do it, why not a major publisher like WB, or 2K?

PS: Don't forget that the total development costs for FFXV will be WAY higher because it's been in development hell for years. This adds a lot to the total costs as it might've had many different iterations before we ended up with what it is now.

At least for CD Project Red, location is a huge factor for why their budget is so small. That and them developing their own tools to create content fast and efficient.

 

[Astery]

It's fun to watch devs spin as the final decision of adding loot boxes are most likely decision from business management, not the people who are at the front lines working their ass off.

Seriously tho a straight non bullshit answer will likely get them fired or warnings, so better take the questions to the right people and grill them instead.

 

[staticneuron]

Until you take a look at the costs of Final Fantasy VII (45 Million Dollars) and Horizon: Zero Dawn (47 Million Dollars) which are both AAA games. By your definition, Horizon should've been close to 90 or 100 Million dollars, but it just isn't.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 46 Million Dollars, and yet there is way more content there than in a Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

How come those games still have late 90s development costs? Why is there such a huge discrepancy when it comes to the big publishers and clearly AAA development studios like Guerrilla and CD Projekt Red?

Clearly there's no 100% increase for all the AAA titles that have come out in recent years.

With careful planning, publishers can save a lot of money and not try to get more money with micro-transactions that are causing an issue right now. If "small" studios like the two I mentioned before can do it, why not a major publisher like WB, or 2K?

PS: Don't forget that the total development costs for FFXV will be WAY higher because it's been in development hell for years. This adds a lot to the total costs as it might've had many different iterations before we ended up with what it is now.

It is pointless to try to compare studios and costs of one title over another.

Variables include anything from employees working on game, time spent on development, target platforms, unique tech and tools, engine work (none, slightly modified, heavy modified or custom engine). Type of media in game such as text only or fully voiced. How about multiplayer? How robust is it? Location? Do they get kickbacks from government?

Again it is a horrible idea to try to do that and is probably better served by comparing the cost of sequels to previous entries in earlier generations. If you do it enough then you see a general trend of increasing costs. More pubs aim for safe bets. Multiplatform games, often with quick turnaround, meaning massive amount of employees to get job done. It really isn't a conspiracy and it doesn't matter as long as they seem to be dedicated to keeping initial entry of game at similar prices for past 3 gens. If people really want to not hop on board the trend of DLC and Loot boxes there are many games without this mechanic. Just don't buy games that include it.

 

[Head.spawn]

*dodge successful*

 

[Rmagnus]

Lol at AAA games costing more. Like a company will ever greenlight a project and forecast to sell it at a loss but yeah keep buying into their bullshit.

 

[Stranya]

They always make it sound like putting in loot boxes is doing players a favour.

 

[SimpleCRIPPLE]

Changed from Day 1 to Gamefly’ng it when its available. I understand loot boxes funding DLC in Halo, Overwatch, Battlefront II, etc and actually prefer it over season passes since it keeps the community together. However, using loot boxes in a single player game as a substation for grinding or the absence of an easier difficulty?

Fuck. That.

 

[texhnolyze]

They always make it sound like putting in loot boxes is doing players a favour.

Maybe it really does?

I mean, we're getting more and more loot boxes in our $60 games. It only means one thing, people do buy them. Perhaps it's actually a significant relief for those people.