Support NeoGAF

[Beerman462]

The increased time and cost of attention to detail in animation I can definitely understand and I've always assumed that's why so many games are so lacking in that area. As far as textures go however, I've always created textures at the highest resolution possible first, then save lower res-versions afterwards. Unlike optimising a 3d mesh, it doesn't take up more time (aside from a couple of key presses). I've always assumed textures are handled this way in the game industry too.

I know Dark Souls had textures (in the PC version anyways) that looked like dog shit until I used DS fix. Some older games had pretty decent textures in them that didn't really stand out till they were rendered at higher resolutions in emulators.

 

[RoboPlato]

I don't have a list of links, but there were a handful of people pounding the table for the benefits of Unreal 4 for example, and how the tools combined with improved hardware will actually make development less costly. Such posts were littered around Wii U speculation threads at the minimum.

Admittedly it seems to be very few people who actually think the costs could go DOWN. I should have been more specific.

It remains to be seen what will happen with costs this gen. For the sake of the industry, hopefully it'll stay under control.

EA estimates a 5-10% increase, which isn't bad.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I find it interesting how in so many of these recent investor conference calls you have these big publishers like Take Two, Activision, Square-Enix and Capcom all sounding slightly hesitant about nextgen development while last week you had EA not sounding concerned at all. Is that EA being confident since they've put their work into Frostbite? Or are they not seeing what seemingly everyone else is seeing?

EA is going to cut down severly the amount of games it puts out each year, thats why.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

I think a lot of them are just preparing their investors for the costs of developing their next gen engines, and explaining losses from past bad mistakes by blaming said engine developments.

 

[goomba]

Is this something hopeful Nintendo fans say to make themselves feel better? Just curious. Not this post in general, but many like it seem to have undertones of wishing doom upon the next gen consoles.

The quoted post just seemed more obvious about it.

What does thinking the entire console industry is in decline have to do with being a Nintnendo fan?

 

[Dark Octave]

I am absolutely shocked that with development costs increasing every gen that they will increase next gen.

I'm not sure why it's ok for a one and a half hour movie to cost $300-million but for a 20+ hour game to be $30-million is ridiculous, yet we expect and demand the same quality production values from both.

 

[Orca]

I get the feeling we're being set up for another price increase.

 

[Effect]

So, do all you Wii U fans still want the hardware to be considered 'next-gen'?

It is "next-gen". Period. Some people can continue their refusal to accept reality all they want.

 

[Coloress_Kafka]

The quote Gamespot pulled feels like it's being taken out of context, it was in response to a guy asking about the costs to port a game between platforms, either up-porting to next gen or down-porting to current gen.

It seems like what Take Two is making for next gen won't be scalable to current gen and they are trying to downplay people expecting them to easily up-port a title to next gen.

 

[RoboPlato]

I'm not sure why it's ok for a one and a half hour movie to cost $300-million but for a 20+ hour game to be $30-million is ridiculous, yet we expect and demand the same quality production values from both.

The issue is that games aren't as mainstream and don't have the same return on investment that movies have. If they were able to make the cash back, it wouldn't be a problem but several major companies are bleedin money on multimillion selling games. That's a problem.

 

[Raven77]

What I dont understand is WHY will development costs be higher?

- I believe they basically make super high quality versions of everything anyway that they then use to get the bump maps, etc. etc. and then they create the lower polygon models.

- Lighting is just something that is rigged and tweaked etc. and most developers don't create their lighting engines from scratch so not sure why that would be higher.

- Textures are typically created at high resolutions and then reduced in quality and size to make games run better.

- AI is not something I expect to get much better, maybe a bit, maybe more speech, more routines, etc. but it doesnt seem like that would raise costs THAT much.

- Story is story. We have long as hell games now with hours upon hours of cutscenes so not sure why that would increase next gen.

So either I am a complete idiot and read up on some really innacurate info (definitely possible), OR the development costs are coming from something not listed above.

If anything, shouldn't it be cheaper? They now DONT have to use all these complicated tricks to make it run better, leave the textures alone, leave the original high quality character and environment models alone = less work.

IDK maybe i'm just completely forgetting or ignoring something here. Sure their may be logistical costs of learning new hardware but that should go away after a few years I would think.

 

[keltickennedy]

Not to mention:

I never liked this example. For it to be more accurate, which would then make it wrong, each face of Mozart should have improved shaders, better facial rigging, improved lighting and effects, etc...

 

[Flachmatuch]

This should be a bannable offense. We have not even begun to approach diminishing returns in terms of poly counts nor in overall visual fidelity.

Yep, someone not agreeing with backseat mod #12986551 should be a bannable offense.

And btw, in this case of "diminishing returns" "returns" are measured in dollars, not hardcore gamers' preferences.

I never liked this example. For it to be more accurate, which would then make it wrong, each face of Mozart should have improved shaders, better facial rigging, improved lighting and effects, etc...

It illustrates a single aspect of the issue, not all of them, but it does that pretty well.

 

[Xiaoki]

I never liked this example. For it to be more accurate, which would then make it wrong, each face of Mozart should have improved shaders, better facial rigging, improved lighting and effects, etc...

For it to be accurate and therefor relevant let's see the 6000 triangles versus 60,000 triangles versions of Mozart's entire body.

It's a biased example because its only a bust. No clothes, no hands, no real hair, etc.

 

[Kariodude]

Developing for new consoles will be expensive?

 

[Lathentar]

What I dont understand is WHY will development costs be higher?

- I believe they basically make super high quality versions of everything anyway that they then use to get the bump maps, etc. etc. and then they create the lower polygon models.

Only for characters and high visibility props do they do this. For environments, they do not. Also, all of the animations are done on the rigged versions of these characters and props. Rigs will most certain get more complicated this coming generation, which directly impacts animation time.

- Lighting is just something that is rigged and tweaked etc. and most developers don't create their lighting engines from scratch so not sure why that would be higher.

More power = More lights = More time to setup. You need one or two people dedicated to setting up lighting, previously you didn't need this.

- Textures are typically created at high resolutions and then reduced in quality and size to make games run better.

Not all textures are created this way. Also, with current graphical techniques, you need many textures for every object. Texture, normal, specular, displacement, etc...

- AI is not something I expect to get much better, maybe a bit, maybe more speech, more routines, etc. but it doesnt seem like that would raise costs THAT much.

Agreed, but it's still a very difficult problem that takes engineering and design time to figure out. Eg. bosses don't magically create themselves.

If anything, shouldn't it be cheaper? They now DONT have to use all these complicated tricks to make it run better, leave the textures alone, leave the original high quality character and environment models alone = less work.

Going down isn't the expensive part, it's making the assets to begin with. The sheer quantity and quality of assets expected is enormous and that will not go down this coming generation.

 

[Kimawolf]

The industry not being in good place due to unrealistic sales expectations driving budgets, both development and marketing, higher and a collapse in terms of the middle-market, and certain individuals gleeful at the prospect of demise providing some sort of vindication, are not mutually exclusive.

Someone is seeing shadows of people in the room when it's just your coat. Calm down with the paranoia/conspiracy talk.

 

[jay]

Has there ever been a generation that was cheaper to make games in than the previous gen? The news seems to be that he may have said something contradictory. That a new generation will be more expensive is not news.

 

[The Bookerman]

I think products like this should spend more time in prototyping phase before going into full production. Minimise the risk. Or Do Smaller XBLA type of games before commiting to a 100 million$ type production of a game.

The Costs that rise? Art assets. That's the biggest problem. Do Smaller games to minimise the risks(Smaller games does not automatically mean shitty Tablet games Square!) to prove concepts: Do bigger games when concepts are proven. That's a big problem within publishers. They want that One Sure fire COD money games each and ever quarter, and that's due to shareholders pressure too.

 

[Raven77]

Going down isn't the expensive part, it's making the assets to begin with. The sheer quantity and quality of assets expected is enormous and that will not go down this coming generation.

Great answers and I agree with a lot of what you say. But for the above, is the quality really going to go beyond what they make now and then reduce to fit with current gen power standards?

I mean I've seen some of the pre-dumbed down if you will versions of current gen game models and they are stunning. Doesnt it cost more to then hire people to reduce them in quality and work to get them to run well and look good on the current consoles?

Also, with all of what you listed above, would that really increase costs THAT much? I mean they all seem like marginal step ups in man power, etc. above what a high end PC game has right now.

 

[Karak]

Great answers and I agree with a lot of what you say. But for the above, is the quality really going to go beyond what they make now and then reduce to fit with current gen power standards?

I mean I've seen some of the pre-dumbed down if you will versions of current gen game models and they are stunning. Doesnt it cost more to then hire people to reduce them in quality and work to get them to run well and look good on the current consoles?

Also, with all of what you listed above, would that really increase costs THAT much? I mean they all seem like marginal step ups in man power, etc. above what a high end PC game has right now.

I also wonder what PC only devs say their games cost. They already have the ability to do everything NEXT GEN systems can do and are making higher resolution assets for their games, custom lighting blah blah blah. So it would interest me how they have been impacted in the last couple years.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I actually disagree in part. Of course Rockstar games will cost tons to produce, that's them.

But for the most part, we have been seeing amazing looking games on PC for years and costs haven't skyrocketed all that much.

I think we are seeing the natural evolution of better spec and being able to put more on screen at higher detail.

It's a bit hasty for a Rockstar of all people to be saying anything like this. I think many will be surprised as we are seeing the rise of indies as well as devs who can (gasp) budget properly!

 

[Lathentar]

Great answers and I agree with a lot of what you say. But for the above, is the quality really going to go beyond what they make now and then reduce to fit with current gen power standards?

I mean I've seen some of the pre-dumbed down if you will versions of current gen game models and they are stunning. Doesnt it cost more to then hire people to reduce them in quality and work to get them to run well and look good on the current consoles?

Also, with all of what you listed above, would that really increase costs THAT much? I mean they all seem like marginal step ups in man power, etc. above what a high end PC game has right now.

Of course the quality will go beyond what they are making now, precisely because you can do more. You can add more lighting so, more lighting work will be done. You can have more particle effects, so more effects will have to be created (which means more textures, models and particle systems). You can have higher quality models, so you now need higher quality rigs. Faces are more detailed, so you better have much higher quality lip syncing and facial rigging.

For the high quality versions, the main cost is in the initial creation of the model. I think you're overestimating the time required to bring down the quality of these models and fail to realize that only a select number of these models are made at that quality and almost never is the environment modeled at that detail.

 

[JWong]

Costly? Depends on the project management that handles the budget.

Complicated? Nope.

 

[ArtHands]

Wait, what? In what sense?

High poly count = high vertex count, high vertex count = more vertices to weight.

 

[SparkTR]

I also wonder what PC only devs say their games cost. They already have the ability to do everything NEXT GEN systems can do and are making higher resolution assets for their games, custom lighting blah blah blah. So it would interest me how they have been impacted in the last couple years.

Well Rome II's budget is 40% higher than any previous Total War game.

 

[Wyndstryker]

People also forget that these things actually require time to make. No artist can make a high poly character from scratch overnight, fully boned and rigged for animations.

Multiply that by a few hundred for some games.

Same goes for environments, the number of HD textures to produce just get higher and higher. More complex environments lead to making smaller things like trashcans...sure they're quick but they still take time.

Doesn't matter what the tools are, the actual development of the assets doesn't change and will take time and a lot of resources.

 

[qko]

EA estimates a 5-10% increase, which isn't bad.

10% of a PS360 AAA title's budget is not the same a 10% of a AAA PS2/Xbox/GC AAA title's budget.


when high profile games costed around $10 million to make back in that era, a 10% increase meant an extra million bucks, when games are costing upwards to the $50 million to make nowadays, a 10% increase looks more like 5 million dollars, at least. I'm sure the estimates were conservative in making the HD jump from the PS2/Xbox to the PS3/Xbox 360 era and devs were not expecting budgets to double or even triple in some cases.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Basically, next gen games will play a lot like current gen games, but the art assets will be displayed better than ever?

Seems nobody is going the route of increasing team sizes and budget for next gen like they did last.

So that every game needs to sell 5 million to break even? Yeah, not happening.

 

[oldergamer]

it won't cost Rockstar more to develop for next gen, they will just enforce 120 hour weeks instead of 60 hour weeks to get the added free labor!

 

[Karak]

Well Rome II's budget is 40% higher than any previous Total War game.

See that's good data. I would like to know what assets and improvements impacted that versus their hiring of over 100 extra staff+contractors through that project and what they worked on(increased assets or other things). Which are both taken into the 40%.

 

[DemonCleaner]

Not to mention:

how about rendering 10 mozarts instead of useless subdivide/meshsmoth?

 

[RoboPlato]

10% of a PS360 AAA title's budget is not the same a 10% of a AAA PS2/Xbox/GC AAA title's budget.


when high profile games costed around $10 million to make back in that era, a 10% increase meant an extra million bucks, when games are costing upwards to the $50 million to make nowadays, a 10% increase looks more like 5 million dollars, at least. I'm sure the estimates were conservative in making the HD jump from the PS2/Xbox to the PS3/Xbox 360 era and devs were not expecting budgets to double or even triple in some cases.

Most games are still in the $20-$40 Million range. All I was saying is that it won't multiply out of control and the increases will be manageable.

Take Two just needs to not let dev cycles spiral out of control fortheir smaller titles. Either that or fund a couple less games per year.

 

[Froli]

I have been thinking before that the demand of gamers asking for more realistic graphics that includes character design and background only creates problems for developers since it takes longer to create and making it more costly. Am I right on this?

How about more stylized game with less polycount, put emphasis on a better gameplay, fps and music.