TheBROgamer
Banned
Game development costs since the PS360 era (first HD era), have only continued to rise tremendously.
Many games prior were made by teams of under 100 people, or slightly over.
Here are some examples of the rise in development resources post-gen 7, required to make a AAA game.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Credits - 607 people
Call of Duty - Modern Warfare Remake Credits - 3357 people
Red Dead Redemption Credits - 1273 people
Red Dead Redemption 2 Credits - 7315 people
Gears of War 3 Credits - 533 people
Gears of War 5 Credits - 1689 people
Cyberpunk 2077 Credits - 3545 people
Here is an example of what resources required used to be, one gen prior to PS360 (gen 6).
Devil May Cry 3 Credits - 234 people
Devil May Cry 5 Credits - 1252 people
This is probably why Nintendo is apprehensive about moving forward another gen, technologically.
The more power at your disposal, the more it costs to utilize and Nintendo probably is afraid of what the technical demands will be from consumers.
I think the answer to where the Modern AAA game development is sustainable is a no, and it's why you see fewer indie companies rise up to take on the established giants (EA, Activision, etc).
Those companies rose up when gaming was much less resource and cost intensive.
Games take longer to release than they ever have, and the return needed to break-even is riskier than ever, leading to safer games as a result.
It was common to get entirely trilogies in one gen, now it's literally possibly one game per gen due to the resources required.
I made a thread on gaming geniuses the other day and guess what, nobody's name mentioned were talent that was new or young.
Valve, Epic Games (only makes engines and updates Fortnite now), and other companies know gaming development costs are not sustainable anymore.
Here's an example, which speaks true for the industry at large.
Your thoughts?
Many games prior were made by teams of under 100 people, or slightly over.
Here are some examples of the rise in development resources post-gen 7, required to make a AAA game.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Credits - 607 people
Call of Duty - Modern Warfare Remake Credits - 3357 people
Red Dead Redemption Credits - 1273 people
Red Dead Redemption 2 Credits - 7315 people
Gears of War 3 Credits - 533 people
Gears of War 5 Credits - 1689 people
Cyberpunk 2077 Credits - 3545 people
Here is an example of what resources required used to be, one gen prior to PS360 (gen 6).
Devil May Cry 3 Credits - 234 people
Devil May Cry 5 Credits - 1252 people
This is probably why Nintendo is apprehensive about moving forward another gen, technologically.
The more power at your disposal, the more it costs to utilize and Nintendo probably is afraid of what the technical demands will be from consumers.
I think the answer to where the Modern AAA game development is sustainable is a no, and it's why you see fewer indie companies rise up to take on the established giants (EA, Activision, etc).
Those companies rose up when gaming was much less resource and cost intensive.
Games take longer to release than they ever have, and the return needed to break-even is riskier than ever, leading to safer games as a result.
It was common to get entirely trilogies in one gen, now it's literally possibly one game per gen due to the resources required.
I made a thread on gaming geniuses the other day and guess what, nobody's name mentioned were talent that was new or young.
Valve, Epic Games (only makes engines and updates Fortnite now), and other companies know gaming development costs are not sustainable anymore.
Here's an example, which speaks true for the industry at large.
Your thoughts?
Last edited: