-
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.
Figures for development cost of games
- Thread starter boco77
- Start date
Mefisutoferesu
Member
Well, I don't really believe the Halo and MGS4 numbers either, I just thought they were more plausible than the others, since they were less obscene.zoku88 said:
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
jakonovski said:
What do you suggest they use? If all of them are donkey balls according to you, perhaps one day one of them will get it right.
dragonlife
Member
I've always found this subject interesting.
Anyone know about how much a DS game costs to develop? Doubt it, but just thought I'd give it a shot
Anyone know about how much a DS game costs to develop? Doubt it, but just thought I'd give it a shot
Legend of Zelda - Twilight Princess - I heard roughly $10 million USD, but I am not certain. It is meant to be the most expensive game Nintendo has ever made. It was in development for about 4 years. edit: 10 million can't be right. edit2: i didn't read any of the other replies about Zelda in this thread before i posted. TP has gotta have cost more than 10 mil.
Shenmue (counting both I & II) about $70 million USD, over the course of about 5 years. I think that includes development from Saturn through Dreamcast.
Not sure if Xbox version of II is counted.
Shenmue (counting both I & II) about $70 million USD, over the course of about 5 years. I think that includes development from Saturn through Dreamcast.
Not sure if Xbox version of II is counted.
From my memory, the XBLA game "Small Arms" was made by 4 people (2 programmers and 2 artists) and cost around $400K to make. It's hard to guage XBLA sales accurately, but it looks like they have cleared $1 million in revenue and will benefit from a long tail. And it sold for $10 on XBLA.
It's an interesting contrast to these big budget titles.
And it's not like it was an easy to make 2D game...here's a pic for those who aren't familiar:
My point is that while it looks like a massive financial burden to make games...digital distribution systems like Steam, XBLA, PSN, and WiiWare, will give smaller developers an opportunity to stay relevant, make quality games, and most importantly make money.
It's an interesting contrast to these big budget titles.
And it's not like it was an easy to make 2D game...here's a pic for those who aren't familiar:
My point is that while it looks like a massive financial burden to make games...digital distribution systems like Steam, XBLA, PSN, and WiiWare, will give smaller developers an opportunity to stay relevant, make quality games, and most importantly make money.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
FightyF said:
Exactly. This makes me wonder about LostWinds and Wario Land Shake's development costs, actually...
lol
Being a accounting clerk those numbers could be from anywhere and include all sorts of non specific costs.
Take EA for example, [i'm told....at their lil recruiting rallies] they have teachers on staff to keep the crew up to date n' whatnot. The costs of that professor and his student's work could be thrown into damn near anything they wanted. So whats the point in trusting any numbers they put out in terms of a specific game's costs. That mystery line applies to so many positions. Tools programmer in particular. You could apply those costs any damn where you wanted. In the gaming world accounting must be FUN.
Being a accounting clerk those numbers could be from anywhere and include all sorts of non specific costs.
Take EA for example, [i'm told....at their lil recruiting rallies] they have teachers on staff to keep the crew up to date n' whatnot. The costs of that professor and his student's work could be thrown into damn near anything they wanted. So whats the point in trusting any numbers they put out in terms of a specific game's costs. That mystery line applies to so many positions. Tools programmer in particular. You could apply those costs any damn where you wanted. In the gaming world accounting must be FUN.
makingmusic476
Member
FFIX also cost $40 million.
http://squarehaven.com/news/2000/07/29/NTV-Tokyo-Interviews-Hironobu-Sakaguchi/
http://squarehaven.com/news/2000/07/29/NTV-Tokyo-Interviews-Hironobu-Sakaguchi/
We should send Sony and Microsoft a thank you card.Deku said:
The problem is that computer science has not excelled at the same rate as hardware... I think the hardware race is going to end this gen, out of necessity alone. People simply can't make games that take advantage of new hardware without changes in how coding and graphic design labor are performed.
Iaido Sword
Banned
Does this include the costs for everything else on the publisher side?
Mr. Pointy
Member
I read $20 million, which sounds a bit more plausible to me. I doubt that includes marketing though.camineet said:
Terrell said:
Why blame them when it's the consumer that craves these things? It not only applies to games, but movies as well.
I wouldn't factor "computer science" as being the issue here. It's mainly to do with the scope of these games, and some key decisions made (ie. licensing an engine versus re-inventing the wheel). Gears of War cost Epic $10 million to make. The UE 3 engine does physics, online play, easy to use editor, scripting, cut-scene directing, sound engine, rendering engine, etc. Many of these big titles are choosing to do all of that all over again.
You're only seeing a few of these massive budget games each year...the rest aren't necessarily sky-high.
Blaming MS and Sony for making powerful hardware doesn't make sense especially when there ARE engines out there that make good use of them and reduce development costs. MT Framework, Ego, UE 3, we're seeing a good number of games being made on them, a great majority of them looking excellent.
You have developers that take UE 3 and decide to make RoboBlitz for the PC and XBLA, and sell the game for $15, and then you have developers like BioWare who choose to make a large scale title in the form of Mass Effect, incurring heavier costs and requiring more time.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Mr. Pointy said:
Twilight Princess had marketing?
P)Iaido Sword
Banned
Miyamoto coming out with Link's shield and sword costed 5 million. =PAndrex said:Twilight Princess had marketing?
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Iaido Sword said:
It cost Shiggy 5 million to pull that stunt?
First off, we only want what we're TOLD to want, and Sony and Microsoft TOLD us to want "teh sick HD grafix". Some people didn't buy into what was sold to them, choosing to buy into Nintendo's marketing jargon instead. Those who rejected both sets of marketing went to game on the "open" PC platform. Simple as that.FightyF said:
Developers shouldn't have to rely on other developers for middleware to get a great game off the ground on this kind of hardware. All that does is stroll us into potential monopoly territory, where companies like Epic suddenly have power to completely dictate the landscape of the industry since 50% or more games use their engine.
This is a 3-pronged issue:
1) Top hardware brings the expectation that it has to be used to its full potential, usually thanks to hardware manufacturers and their marketing departments
2) Making a top-tier game shouldn't involve slave labor, which is currently the case with the 200+ developers per AAA title, as opposed to maybe 20 guys in a room 10-15 years ago, and the only cause for this is coding and graphic design hasn't been streamlined to accommodate the vast excess of work required to exploit new hardware
3) Companies wish not to put their trust in someone else's work to get the job done, and we can already see examples of how this is bad for the industry by how many rumblings we hear of people being pissed with Epic over UE3 deployment, culminating in a lawsuit from crybaby/douche game designer Denis Dyack
Explain to me where the good news is here. PLEASE.
Phife Dawg
Member
Is there any reason to believe these numbers?zoku88 said:
Those props are expensive.Andrex said:It cost Shiggy 5 million to pull that stunt?
FINALFANTASYDOG
Member
Most of idea factory's next gen games have sold under 12,000 copies and they keep making them, and they seem happy. Literally this must mean a crappy recycled engine next-gen game can be made for less then 250k.
Terrell said:
to point 1) above:
At some point (you can argue whether or not Nintendo was right with their bet this generation), game graphics are going to reach a point where they're "good enough" for the average user and display technology available. For me, I was unhappy with the resolution of games last gen, and the 360/PS3 have sort of hit my sweet spot pretty well graphically.
This, coupled with the limited talents and budgets of artists and developers, will at some point in the future reach a level where most games do not push hardware to its limits, and instead opt for "good enough" graphics. If the hardware's capabilities far exceed the needs of the developer's vision, it then becomes cheaper to make the game, since resources won't need to be spent as much on optimizing for the hardware to get the most out of it.
For an example, let's look at a small budget game like Pac-Man Championship edition. Obviously, this game is not taxing the 360's hardware at all, but it still has a pleasing look to it. I doubt the programmers at Namco had to spend much time or effort (if any at all) in optimizing this game's code for performance. Now let's take Uncharted as an example at the other end. A lot of money, time and effort obviously went into optimizing this game to run on the PS3 hardware, and it shows. Now, if the PS3 was 20 times as powerful, making the exact same game run would cost significantly less. If Uncharted is at or near this "good enough" threshold for a future developer, they will be able to create the exact same game for far less money on a future console than Uncharted cost to make.
***
When this time finally comes in the game industry (whather it be next gen, next-next gen or sometime beyond that) then the industry will truly be mature and able to sustain diverse development from studios of different sizes. There will still be developers who push the hardware to its limit, and spend huge budgets to do it, but there will also be independent developers who can make games that look good enough to sit on the shelf next to them for a lot less money.
To take the movie industry as an example, there are still huge budget blockbusters coming out every summer trying to top each other with the best stunts and special effects, even when their processing power for effects is basically unlimited, but there's also a lot of movies made in the $5-to-$30 million budget range which are hits as well. There's also plenty of movies made for even less than that which are well-received, critically acclaimed, and turn a profit.
It is at this point in the industry's life that the "one console future" will become viable. It may take another industry crash like we had in the 80s to get there, but it is an inevitability at some point.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Y2Kev said:
If you look at the end of a sentence or a word, you will see a superscript number within brackets. Click it, and it would show you the citation. Their source is the October 2005 edition of EGM.
SaggyMonkey
Member
On a $50 to $60 shelf game, only about $5 from that sale pays for development cost.
IIRC, the movie industry isn't as healthy as in the past. While the studios often blame the piracy, they can't deny their blockbusters reach a financial level where they need to go really strong on first week, otherwise the movies are already flops.Brashnir said:
Edit: I think the video game industry needs more games in the mid budget range.
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
[Nintex] said:
Holy crap. Only 84 millions? They earned 2.4 billions $ last year. And consider then that they have 8.5 billions $ of cash. O_O
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
woah, i didn't know FFXII cost THAT much to make .. all worth it though imo.
vanguardian1
poor, homeless and tasteless
chandoog said:
At least someone thinks so. >.>
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
According to Forbes - Lost Planet (360) cost $20 million to develop and $20 million to advertise. What should really be worrying is the escalating advertising budgets, not development budgets. the fact that they spent as much money ramming the game down peoples throats as they did on actually making it is not a good sign.
Cool Hand Luke
Banned
Do you mean that they only make 5$ profit per game sold?SaggyMonkey said:
Because that obviously doesn't add up.
Iaido Sword
Banned
Or those silly and pointless 10 million dollar Halo 3 commercials. :lolpoppabk said:
Those are terrible commercials.
Maybe some of these extraneous costs are because of stupid decisions like those Halo 3 commercials.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
zoukka said:
Little does Miyamoto know that Aonuma will soon behead him with that very sword and gain the powers of ultimate game maker...
jangotangos
Member
The Force Unleashed development ended up costing around $50M
Iaido Sword
Banned
If you're thinking Halo 3 sold well because of those diorama commercials, reevaluate your thoughts.zoukka said:
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
TheOddOne (on Halo3) said:
Wasn't the OP specifically talking about development costs? Those shouldn't include marketing.
So it's a bit messed up either wai you look at it, I sure doubt GTIV development costs are anywhere near the realm of $100 million... probably half of that, maybe 70 million considering it's a multiplatform game (I'm pulling this figures outta my ass
)