• 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?

Anuxinamoon

Shaper Divine
I don't really understand why development costs are rising so much. Shouldn't more powerful consoles be easier to develop for? Like, if you try to make a game on the PS2, you have to spend a lot of time and effort optimizing everything, tricking the system into handling memory the most efficient way, making sure things don't have too many polygons or too high-res textures, stuff like that. But if you make that same game for the 360, you don't have too worry so much about those kinds of restrictions.

Its not as simple as that. Higher power doesn't just give you the excuse to be lazy :p I remember asking my lead engineer once what the differences between the 360 and PS3 are. He said it was the difference between driving a manual car (driving stick) and driving auto.

Also as an artist, if I was told to just make the graphics 'good enough' I would probably hand in my resignation the next day. Artists don't want to just make uprezzed ps2 graphics haha. We have access to more powerful shaders, more drawcalls and larger draw distances. We are given more bones per chunk and higher textures. All of these will take more time to make. Place 1000 barrels and crates.. more time needed to do that then placing 3. We want to be able to smash all these things up. Shit now I have to make destructible meshes (if no auto destruct script is available)
We want to make it better and closer to the art directors vision. Sometimes that means more (like an uncharted 2) or that means less (like journey) But rest assured we will always try to make it the best possible thing we have ever done with the resources we are given. :p
 

zoukka

Member
It is a threat to all devs that cannot evolve and become more efficient.

So in general if might be a threat to gaming in general.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
We've been discussing the possible doom of the industry by rising development costs (and piracy) since the mid-eighties..

Apart from the usual challenges by running a business, and normal development and entertainment shifts, nothing bad is going to happen with the industry.
 

Darkkn

Member
I don't see why the budgets would have to go up. Devs can make quite a bit better looking games without doing much at all. UE4 games are going to look much better than current games just because of better lighting and rendering techniques. Add to that higher resolution and better image quality and you are at the point where your actual game is going to make the difference of being successful, not the increased production values.

Only way the budgets are going to rise is if publishers want to invest more into their games which they can already do, but instead they have set more reasonable budget targets. Developers can certainly do more with the next-gen hardware with the same amount of resources available.
 

Striek

Member
Or let's say it this way: If the industry continues to kill studios left and right, what is the end result? Only the biggest publishers are going to survive, and the market will completely in their control because other competitors are out of the market or eaten by them. I think Activision and EA are already way too big.
For one, thats not actually a problem. If not enough consumers want the games publisher A makes to keep them in business, thats perfectly fine. More than fine really. No one has actually tried to argue that the videogame industry will have cost barriers too high to enter (which would be foolish given iOS and indie PC success).


People mostly seem worried about games that most people don't want (mid-tier console stuff) dying off. But if people don't want it, they don't want it. The obvious thing to say is that if rising dev costs are killing the margins on software, then don't raise your game budgets. Develop to the same standard you did this generation. If your current consumers have higher graphical demands come next generation, and won't support your game then your niche is dead. Can't do dick about that.
 

Neo C.

Member
People mostly seem worried about games that most people don't want (mid-tier console stuff) dying off. But if people don't want it, they don't want it. The obvious thing to say is that if rising dev costs are killing the margins on software, then don't raise your game budgets. Develop to the same standard you did this generation. If your current consumers have higher graphical demands come next generation, and won't support your game then your niche is dead. Can't do dick about that.

Of course you can, it's just the big players don't want to do shit. I understand them, they don't want regulations or self-made rules. Just like car makers didn't make any serious effort to reduce the gas usage until the EU (and the oil market) force them to innovate. Now we have lots of great cars with great mileage.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Devs were worried about this last time. And the time before that. And the time...

No, it wasn't always like this. Developers and publishers were always stoked about the possibilities the new hardware would offer. All this grumbling about the high cost of development didn't being until this generation.
 

Striek

Member
Of course you can, it's just the big players don't want to do shit. I understand them, they don't want regulations or self-made rules. Just like car makers didn't make any serious effort to reduce the gas usage until the EU (and the oil market) force them to innovate. Now we have lots of great cars with great mileage.
Not a competent analogy at all.

Those games exist right now. They'll exist next-gen if they're viable. If anything you're advocating the opposite, more like we outlaw cars with better MPG so theres an even playing field with consumers.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
All this grumbling about the high cost of development didn't being until this generation.


I can assure you with a 100% certainty that you are completely wrong about that :) I don't know what kind of boards and gaming news you've been reading, but the discussion started a long time ago. I remember discussing this at the alt. bulletin boards in the mid-eighties about the rising cost of going from 2D to 3D. Don't you even remember Sony talking about its shared knowledgebases dev tools and asset libraries to reduce cost before the PS2 was released?
 
I don't really understand why development costs are rising so much. Shouldn't more powerful consoles be easier to develop for? Like, if you try to make a game on the PS2, you have to spend a lot of time and effort optimizing everything, tricking the system into handling memory the most efficient way, making sure things don't have too many polygons or too high-res textures, stuff like that. But if you make that same game for the 360, you don't have too worry so much about those kinds of restrictions.

At the end of the day, you have a game that looks better and was easier to make. Yeah, it won't look as good as your super huge budget AAA system seller Gears and Gods of Wars. But I don't think it has to. A game can look good without pushing the limits of the console.

I feel like it's more of a planning and budgeting issue than a "These systems are getting too powerful!" issue. You don't have to spend eight gajillion dollars to make a game that looks nice and is fun to play. Give the game a moderate budget. Save a ton of money by making a game that doesn't need a bunch of cutscenes and voice acting to be effective. Then sell it for $40 instead of $60, and don't release it in November next to Call of Duty and Halo. There, I've just saved your damn industry.

Stronger machines means more time must be put into assets and code. Even with the introduction middleware you can't completely remove the need of programmers coding away and encountering problems.

More complex games, mean higher chance of bugs, which means more time needed for the coders to get things right. Also higher graphic levels means more demand on the art team. Even with better tools, the artist still needs to put time into the assets. Better rendering engines and whatnot mean nothing if the artist can't make a model for the engines to use. Great engines mean nothing if the coders don't understand it. There is always a base level that needs to be done before you can start taking advantage of cost reducing middleware. And with every increase of power, that base minimum goes up.

It's way easier these days to make a small indie game because the tools are out there and gotten powerful. But for consoles, the tools weren't as powerful yet or weren't even there yet. Now that there has been some time for the tools to mature, it would be a bit easier. But it's already taken a ton of casualties to reach this point.
 

Neo C.

Member
Not a competent analogy at all.

Those games exist right now. They'll exist next-gen if they're viable. If anything you're advocating the opposite, more like we outlaw cars with better MPG so theres an even playing field with consumers.

Basically this: Introduce regulations which are favourable for mid budget but less for high budget games. It isn't possible because the big players won't ever agree on this sort of regulations.
 

kswiston

Member
Japanese games (outside of Nintendo) have been struggling with worldwide sales this generation, but Japanese developers do a great job at budgeting their projects appropriately. Yakuza has never sold much more than 750k WW, yet they have released 4 mainline games and two spin-offs. Presumably the 400-600k copies they sell of each game in Japan is enough to turn a profit. Suda seems to release 1-2 projects a year despite all of them selling very few copies.

Then we have western games like Homefront that, despite selling well over 1M copies first month (and shipping over 2.5M), are considered to have disappointing sales due to their gigantic development and marketing budgets.
 
I'm coming late into this discussion, but I kind of had a related question. If Sony goes with a more traditional architecture this upcoming generation, how much will this improve the situation for multiplatform developers aiming for Xbox720/Playstation 4/PC games? Would it have a trivial impact or would it make a significant difference? Would it make ports across all platforms better because less time is needed to cater to each one or would it just improve the port situation for Sony?
 

Striek

Member
Basically this: Introduce regulations which are favourable for mid budget but less for high budget games. It isn't possible because the big players won't ever agree on this sort of regulations.
Also because its contrary to the wishes of most consumers. Again, better technology doesn't preclude modest (or ugly) games being developed. None of the hardware manufacturers have ever shown an inclination to enforce high standards of graphical quality control and theres always open platforms like the PC. The entire spectrum of shitty to amazing presentation will be available to exploit. If people heavily favour one extreme of that spectrum *so much* that a title developed on a modest budget is an unprofitable venture, that is a game that should never have been made because there wasn't an audience for it. If you increase the budget and the presentation and extra sales don't make up for the expanded budget, thats a game that should never have been made because there wasn't an audience for it.

You cannot force people to pay attention to games they don't want to, much less spend money on them. You shouldn't try to hold back technological progress just to support developers whose business models are failing. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all have their own ideas on what consumers want, as does each publisher. Those who get it right will be successful and those who get it wrong might go bankrupt. Thats how business works.
 

Durante

Member
Also because its contrary to the wishes of most consumers. Again, better technology doesn't preclude modest (or ugly) games being developed. None of the hardware manufacturers have ever shown an inclination to enforce high standards of graphical quality control and theres always open platforms like the PC. The entire spectrum of shitty to amazing presentation will be available to exploit. If people heavily favour one extreme of that spectrum *so much* that a title developed on a modest budget is an unprofitable venture, that is a game that should never have been made because there wasn't an audience for it. If you increase the budget and the presentation and extra sales don't make up for the expanded budget, thats a game that should never have been made because there wasn't an audience for it.

You cannot force people to pay attention to games they don't want to, much less spend money on them. You shouldn't try to hold back technological progress just to support developers whose business models are failing. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all have their own ideas on what consumers want, as does each publisher. Those who get it right will be successful and those who get it wrong might go bankrupt. Thats how business works.
I agree completely with everything you've said. I'd just like to add that there clearly is a sufficient market for titles with a modest presentation, tons of games prove that.

I'm coming late into this discussion, but I kind of had a related question. If Sony goes with a more traditional architecture this upcoming generation, how much will this improve the situation for multiplatform developers aiming for Xbox720/Playstation 4/PC games? Would it have a trivial impact or would it make a significant difference? Would it make ports across all platforms better because less time is needed to cater to each one or would it just improve the port situation for Sony?
Well, ideally, having what is basically a low-mid end PC, a mid-end PC and PC to target will just lead to even more and better PC versions of games. Maybe even Japanese ones outside of Capcom.
 
Popular, low-development cost games help subsidize a lot of other games to happen.

People -- especially at Gaf -- complain about yearly iterations of Madden, NHL, NBA 2K, MLB The Show, and so on -- but those games are high sellers for easily produced and developed games, on yearly development cycles. They may spend a good amount to make Madden each year, with a large team, but it isn't a multi-year expensive project, and Madden sells, and it's been a pretty good game the last few years.. Good enough to sell to the same audience the next year.

The success of Madden goes into EA's coffers to try projects like Mirrors Edge, which they may only be able to try once every few years... taking a chance on a new IP.

However, for sustainable budgets for AAA games, you have to pull a Rockstar approach or Bethesda/Fallout 3 approach. Making a giant, original world and selling it for $60 will push a lot of copies, but disposable revenue will come with the release of worthy DLC packs... that use a lot of the same assets already in the game, add some new scripting, voice work, and story, and hope they sell well. This cuts down dramatically on publishing costs too, because they don't usually have to ship new discs out with add-on packs and DLC.

Finally, I think that we'll need to see cash in on social games by major developers. I am consistently shocked that EA -- for all of its cash milking that it does -- does not cash in on social networks in a more functional way, with real tie ins to their actual published games. By offering side games on social networks, pushed by microtransactions, people will complain about them nickle and diming, but I think that a lot of hardcore gamers and fans of the series would happily pay for added extra-console content.

I am a Madden fan.. one of those weirdos who buys the game every other year and even though I know its all reiterative, I really enjoy the football games and running my franchises. Madden should offer a Facebook tie in where you can run browser-based minigames to manipulate your players, as a toggle-able setting. If you turned this setting off, then it would have no effect and your game would continue like usual. But if you turn it on, it opens up a Farmville-like managing process for managing player skills, their team relationship, media stuff with your franchise, and other elements that wouldn't necessarily work in game but would work in a browser window. So, while you play your games at night when you get home, during the day at work or on the subway, you login and set 5 of your OLineman to do blocking drills (which cancels them out for the rest of the day), set the rehab schedule for your running back, manage your teams public relations by pleasing the press with a head coach press conference. Maybe if you force your HC into too many pressers, he gets tired and does something to damage the organization, complaining about your ownership style, etc.

It's a whole minigame, a side game from the meat and bones of Madden... toggle-able, and packed with microtransactions... Pay $0.50 to get an extra workout day out of your running back; pay $1.00 to get extra bargaining time with a free agent that locks him to yuour team come next year; drop $2.00 for an wide receivers plyometrix training, which gives them a ratings boost for 1 week; spend $3.50 on a scouting book that gives you 20 top draft picks to focus on, and so on. Or, otherwise, recruit two of your Madden-owning friends to join in on the Facebook Madden game... It rewards you with 2 extra training sessions and reveals 5 hidden gem draft picks to them.

So, fans will throw up their arms in complaints, but, whatever, dont use it if you don't want to. Never punish a player for turning this feature off and not using it, but create a reward structure for using. Further, don't make it "paying for cheats," like the current system.

You can apply this to a million other games... Skyrim character management or Assassins Creed city manager system from AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations. Break that out into a more expansive social media driven game and have both your in game, console play reflect in the Facebook version and vice-versa.

Profit.
 

Mxrz

Member
Yes? Maybe? I'd be more concerned about Activision, EA, and Ubisoft's scorched earth policies stamping out everything else myself.

My two most played games over the last 2 years have been GT5 and Dwarf fortress. Both of those are technically profitable. I think I'll be okay.

That's what it boils down to. People are all too eager to disregard the games they don't like or think highly of when they think of "the industry." But if you're going to talk about it, you can't leave our the yearly titles or casual bits that dominate the sales charts. People don't like to think that their favorite kinds of games are just niche these days, and whose lack of success isn't foreshadowing some big apocalyptic doom to the rest of the industry.
 

News Bot

Banned
The real threat to the industry are people who think that spending loads of money on a game somehow guarantees good sales for it.

This right here. Nobody gives a flying fuck wrapped in bacon if the cut-scenes are directed in Hollywood or three tracks not even on the soundtrack are made by a 200+ orchestra.
 

J-Rod

Member
I'm not worried about it. It's not the narrow market of the 80's anymore. Video games are mainstream and a multi billion dollar industry. Something like that doesn't just disappear, because there is too much money to be had in it. It's just a question of which companies can adapt to the changing environment and which are smart enough to do it. A lot aren't. That is the nature of our economic system.
 

kswiston

Member
When games hit $70, I'm out. I can barely afford $60, and I can't get all the ones I want day 1.

Switch to indie/small dev PC games and handheld titles. $5-40, and tons of awesome titles. What you lose in production values and flashy cutscenes, you often gain in gameplay and innovation.

Also, waiting 3-6 months gets you most A and AAA multiplat titles for $5-15 on PC. The Darkness 2 is currently on sale for $12.50 on Amazon. The game came out 2 months ago.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
The problem is really that the most popular sorts of games are so expensive to make nowadays that there's noone able to challenge them directly without joining the millionaires club.

FPS... You can't compete with the Halo's, CoD's, and Battlefields without spending a fortune. Same deal with the heavy-hitters in the TPS arena: You want to take on Gears or Uncharted...
Open world stuff like GTA or Skyrim... big $$$
Sports titles have massive licensing costs attached, as do other titles that rely on existing IP's from film/books etc.

Also, when these behemoths set the standards for scope and visual complexity, it sets up expectations that trickle down to the less mainstream genres. Forcing their budgets up, and making them increasingly unlikely to turn a profit.

It's all a bit of a nightmare really.
 
When games hit $70, I'm out. I can barely afford $60, and I can't get all the ones I want day 1.

While the $60 pricetag does suck (I used to make far more impulse buys at $50, even with no steady income), Amazon and other companies do deals on games. In 2011/2012, I think I've bought 1 game for full price without a $10 or $20 off on launch... and that was MLB The Show, a game that is so weird in holding it's price and giving no rebates.
 
This right here. Nobody gives a flying fuck wrapped in bacon if the cut-scenes are directed in Hollywood or three tracks not even on the soundtrack are made by a 200+ orchestra.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. These days nobody gives a crap about game design...they want production. Production IS game design these days. "Cool" "Awesome" and "Epic" are just shallow words saying the same thing. You take those 3 words out of Gaf and you got very few compliments. Hype is king. Attention grabbing (competitive production) things are what makes hype when you're business model is geared toward the gamer's demographic.

It's become a "competing with the jones" scenario and gamers have indulged themselves in it and flame the fire. They have voted, again and again, that they want to play the same game (same game design, if not a little worse) but with more "wow"
 
That's what it boils down to. People are all too eager to disregard the games they don't like or think highly of when they think of "the industry." But if you're going to talk about it, you can't leave our the yearly titles or casual bits that dominate the sales charts. People don't like to think that their favorite kinds of games are just niche these days, and whose lack of success isn't foreshadowing some big apocalyptic doom to the rest of the industry.

A couple of games a year does not an industry make. For every success story in the indy market these days, there are literally hundreds of failures. Today, at least 20 games came out in the indy market if you were to head over to jayisgames, apple's store, etc. You will not hear of anything of them...ever.

By the end of the year, you may have heard of a couple of them. It's a mess AND it's starting to get more and more competitive and wouldn't you know it, more expensive because of it. Guess what's going to happen when the IPAD4 can handle ps2 level graphics. Look at what already happened to XBLA. Those budgets have sky rocketed as well. Indy is not the solution, it's just behind the times a little and heading into the same wall as AAA games have. Indy has become part of the problem even though its induction was intended to do the opposite.
 

djtiesto

is beloved, despite what anyone might say
I wonder how much time japanese developers need to realize that all they need to do is to tap into the digital western market, because there IS a 250k-500k potential customer base out there who would gladly buy a game or two every 2-3 months in that category, even if it does not have the production quality of a blockbuster game.

As someone who prefers both physical goods and Japanese games, I would hate to see Japanese devs go DD only. Really hoping some classic J-devs go the Kickstarter route though.
 

Jackl

Member
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.


Chase people off is putting it lightly. DD/PC industry would eat console's lunch with $400+ consoles and 100 dollar games. Suddenly a 600 dollar PC with 20 dollar games doesn't sound so bad. The PC indie scene would explode with laid-off teams making indie games.

10 guys working in a crappy office, are perfectly fine with revenues of a million or 2 off a competent game. I don't think the major publisher's can afford to isolate themselves off with high prices while DD becomes more relevant, and PC gaming more affordable.
 

Mandoric

Banned
A couple of games a year does not an industry make. For every success story in the indy market these days, there are literally hundreds of failures. Today, at least 20 games came out in the indy market if you were to head over to jayisgames, apple's store, etc. You will not hear of anything of them...ever.

By the end of the year, you may have heard of a couple of them. It's a mess AND it's starting to get more and more competitive and wouldn't you know it, more expensive because of it. Guess what's going to happen when the IPAD4 can handle ps2 level graphics. Look at what already happened to XBLA. Those budgets have sky rocketed as well. Indy is not the solution, it's just behind the times a little and heading into the same wall as AAA games have. Indy has become part of the problem even though its induction was intended to do the opposite.

I don't think there really is an "indie games scene".
I think there's a "buy whatever's $5" scene and a "buy whatever's hyped by the press" scene, and neither is conducive to the niche surviving big publisher interference or the inevitable next round of website editors who will have new drinking buddies to talk up.
 

kswiston

Member
By the end of the year, you may have heard of a couple of them. It's a mess AND it's starting to get more and more competitive and wouldn't you know it, more expensive because of it. Guess what's going to happen when the IPAD4 can handle ps2 level graphics. Look at what already happened to XBLA. Those budgets have sky rocketed as well. Indy is not the solution, it's just behind the times a little and heading into the same wall as AAA games have. Indy has become part of the problem even though its induction was intended to do the opposite.

This ignores the fact that PC has always been the most capable machine on the market, yet still has a thriving indie/small dev scene that chooses to forgo giant budgets and target a specific gaming audience. Paradox has had a number of hits in recent years for example.

XBLA artificially limits the number of games that are released every week. This leads to the games with the best production values gaining preference. So basically, where it started out as a haven for indie games, it is quickly turning into a place where large publishers release their smaller games. Some of which would have been retail releases last gen. It doesn't help that Microsoft refuses to let devs self-publish on XBLA.
 

angelfly

Member
I don't think the development costs are actually rising. They went up with the switch to HD but they've been dealing with these costs for 6 years so there's no way they haven't settled down to around to what they were last gen. Mismanagement seems to be the biggest threat to the industry. When we have companies spending more than the cost of the game itself on marketing, studios spending the whole generation making one game, or every game getting a "we have to be bigger than CoD budget", that's the threat.
 

gatti-man

Member
Of course it's a threat. A huge one. Look at all the developers who have gone under after one or two bombs this generation.

But a lot of people on NeoGAF think it's fine because Uncharted is successful or some nonsense like that.

You just described captolism. Most mid sized companies would go under after producing consecutive bombs. Only the largest of the large can fail over and over and still have a chance of survival.
 
I don't think the development costs are actually rising. They went with the switch to HD but they've been dealing with these costs for 6 years so there's no way they settled down to around to what they were last gen. Mismanagement seems to be the biggest threat to the industry. When we have companies spending more than the cost of the game itself on marketing, studios spending the whole generation making one game, or every game getting a "we have to be bigger than CoD budget", that's the threat.

So your saying developers should take some self responsibility and not blame the hardware?

Fuck that! The hardware is too powerful! Every developer have to spend over 100 million to compete with the big franchises! it's not like they have options to make cheaper games for the wii or develop for xbox live, psn, steam or actually be somewhat responsible like CD Projekt RED did with the Witcher 2.

Nope, it's all hardware. I hope sony/ms charge me over $300 for dated hardware so everyone can keep their jobs.
 

Neo C.

Member
Also because its contrary to the wishes of most consumers.
Not necessarily. If you can create a market condition for more innovative games, chances are higher to win more new and lapsed gamers.

You cannot force people to pay attention to games they don't want to, much less spend money on them.
The ideal market doesn't exist, consumers don't know every thing (the main argument against the rational choice theory). Therefore there's a lot, really a lot of room to improve the situation for mid budget games. Market conditions are made, the app market exist in this way because Apple want it this way. It's up to the big players whether or not they want to change the game, because it highly unlikely that governmental forces would do anything in this regard (contrary to other market where they regulate heavily).

You shouldn't try to hold back technological progress just to support developers whose business models are failing.
You are calling the wrong person, I'm all for technological progress, I'm all for scientific progress! The question is, in which direction we should go. Put a limit (or tax) in one direction isn't a problem if you can push other directions.
 

kswiston

Member
Then don't? Buying games on day 1 is a hilarious waste of money. I rarely do it and I can easily afford to, but I always buy new.

I buy maybe 6-10 games a year day 1. Out of those, I will pay full price for 3 or 4. PC digital distribution typically has great pre-order offers if you are not dead set on buying from Steam (some people do this even if a title is steamworks). Everything else will be $20 off somewhere in the first 6 weeks of release.

I reserve full price day 1 purchases for stuff I want to support, like Xenoblade.
 
You can benefit from better hardware regardless of your budget.

The problem here isn't the hardware or ever-increasing costs, it's publishers and developers being shortsighted and thinking they have to outdo the competition through going bigger and badder instead of having a good idea for a game and then using the hardware to make it as good as possible.

There are big publishers out there that can afford to go big but everyone else should plan their games according to the available budget. You don't have to break the bank to make a great game.

At some point tools will get so much better than even small teams will be able to create great things (just like a single guy in his room can make better special effects today than big budget movies not so long ago) but we are not there yet.

So outdo the competition with your brains (at no cost!).
 

gatti-man

Member
I buy maybe 6-10 games a year day 1. Out of those, I will pay full price for 3 or 4. PC digital distribution typically has great pre-order offers if you are not dead set on buying from Steam (some people do this even if a title is steamworks). Everything else will be $20 off somewhere in the first 6 weeks of release.

I reserve full price day 1 purchases for stuff I want to support, like Xenoblade.

I REALLY want to play xenoblade but im not buying a wii for 1 game :(
 

Mandoric

Banned
You can benefit from better hardware regardless of your budget.

The problem here isn't the hardware or ever-increasing costs, it's publishers and developers being shortsighted and thinking they have to outdo the competition through going bigger and badder instead of having a good idea for a game and then using the hardware to make it as good as possible.

There are big publishers out there that can afford to go big but everyone else should plan their games according to the available budget. You don't have to break the bank to make a great game.

At some point tools will get so much better than even small teams will be able to create great things (just like a single guy in his room can make better special effects today than big budget movies not so long ago) but we are not there yet.

So outdo the competition with your brains (at no cost!).

That's a nice ideal, but it breaks down in practice. We've just watched an entire generation where Japanese devs as a group did that and have gotten roundly criticized for dropping the ball technically while becoming "too niche/quirky".
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
That's a nice ideal, but it breaks down in practice. We've just watched an entire generation where Japanese devs as a group did that and have gotten roundly criticized for dropping the ball technically while becoming "too niche/quirky".

we also got demons souls and valkyria.
 

Mandoric

Banned
Aren't rising costs a danger in every industry?

Most industries are constrained by materials, which even when they spike rarely do more than double, and are linear per unit.

Gaming is constrained by R&D, which went up an order of magnitude between 16-bit and PS2 and another order of magnitude this gen, and doesn't lessen at all for smaller production runs.
 
I don't think costs are going to be that much higher. After all devs already make models in millions of polygons only to scale them down for current get.

It shouldn't make much difference. You can make games massively better looking for no additional cost. In fact, people spend plenty of time and money on highly reductive bump mapping and things. Asset wise, we've been ready for the next gen for years. The Witcher 2 on PC looks far better than anything on consoles, and was relatively speaking, very cheap.

See:

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.

Its not as simple as that. Higher power doesn't just give you the excuse to be lazy :p I remember asking my lead engineer once what the differences between the 360 and PS3 are. He said it was the difference between driving a manual car (driving stick) and driving auto.

Also as an artist, if I was told to just make the graphics 'good enough' I would probably hand in my resignation the next day. Artists don't want to just make uprezzed ps2 graphics haha. We have access to more powerful shaders, more drawcalls and larger draw distances. We are given more bones per chunk and higher textures. All of these will take more time to make. Place 1000 barrels and crates.. more time needed to do that then placing 3. We want to be able to smash all these things up. Shit now I have to make destructible meshes (if no auto destruct script is available)
We want to make it better and closer to the art directors vision. Sometimes that means more (like an uncharted 2) or that means less (like journey) But rest assured we will always try to make it the best possible thing we have ever done with the resources we are given. :p
 
Top Bottom