Support NeoGAF

[RydonStarLives]

So recently I have been thinking about game development times for studios, how long it takes for them to complete, if it really is more difficult or time consuming than in previous generations, etc. I thought I would try and look at some data, and while this is not all encompassing by far, it is somewhat interesting to look at and think on.
I decided to grab a list of games developed by Capcom, a heavy weight gaming company for decades, and go through what they have developed (Not just published) throughout the years and look at quantity of output, but also if any new games were created, etc. It is pretty interesting to look at. Here is a quick glance at the numbers (source is from wikipedia, which again means take it with a grain of salt, or shot of penicillin).

2nd Gen Era (NES and Family Computer)
Total Games Developed: 37
Sequels or Ports: 10
(There are a few ports I didn't count like Bionic Commando, Strider, since they are so different from the arcade)

3rd Gen Sega Genesis, TG-16, SNES
Total Games Developed: 32
Sequels or Ports: 11

4th Gen Playstation 1, N64, Sega Saturn
Total Games Developed: 67
Sequels or Ports: 38

5th Gen Playstation 2, Xbox, DreamCast, GameCube
Total Games Developed: 98
Sequels or Ports: 43

6th Gen Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Wii
Total Games Developed: 46
Ports or Sequels: 39

7th Gen Playstation 4, Xbox One, Switch
Total Games Developed: 45
Ports or Sequels: 45

It's interesting to look at this, as you keep going down the generations you see that there more and more dependence on creating more numbers on IPs (sequels) or for the later gens, just porting the old games over to the new consoles. For what Capcom developed in house this past gen, there were none that were new/original IPs. Not that I can tell at least, if anyone knows of a new IP capcom developed in house then let me know, as I would gladly pick it up. I just picked up DMC5 since that is a Non-Port game that was made in house by Capcom this Gen, and other than RE7, I think that is it. The rest are ports.

Maybe the new trend is to grab up other companies to make new non-sequel games for you, and perhaps that is working for them, but it is kinda a bummer to see this trend with such a big name company like Capcom.

I plan on doing this for some other big name companies (Konami, SquareSoft, etc.) but I am currenly developing my own game, I have a full time job, and small kids, so I don't have as much time as I would like to write up my complete thoughts on this, but I still wanted to get the info / conversation out there as I find it interesting to think on.

Google Sheets doc of the games, etc. in case anyone is interested:

 

[Belmonte]

Interesting numbers but IMO it would be even better without putting sequels along with ports.

Not the most popular opinion but I think original IPs are overrated.

Sure, I like when there is a new game with a fresh take as much as the next guy but I like when a type of gameplay is polished and meaningful features are added also.

Capcom is a great example of this by the way: they couldn't make the deep and complex DMCV combat without many iterations and lessons learned from past titles. The same with Monster Hunter, Street Fighter and other of their franchises.

 

[RydonStarLives]

Interesting numbers but IMO it would be even better without putting sequels along with ports.

Not the most popular opinion but I think original IPs are overrated.

Sure, I like when there is a new game with a fresh take as much as the next guy but I like when a type of gameplay is polished and meaningful features are added also.

Capcom is a great example of this by the way: they couldn't make the deep and complex DMCV combat without many iterations and lessons learned from past titles. The same with Monster Hunter, Street Fighter and other of their franchises.

I agree that sequels are not the same as ports, but I think that depends on the developer also, where some games are just somewhat updated and pushed out, and others are an actual iteration on their previous installment.

As far as original IPs over Sequels, I think there has to be a good middle ground. I always think back on Legend of Zelda

The OG NES game was a watershed title, with copy cats popping up once it was released (Neutopia, crystalis, etc.). Then Zelda II came out, and was VERY different, with more emphasis on RPG mechanics, like random battles, stat increases based on level, and an overworld screen separate from dungeon, town, or battle screens. Then you get to Zelda III or SNES Zelda, and they went back to basics of the NES original, but updated for 16 bit. With that came a huge increase in accessibility, gameplay depth, story telling, etc. but I fail to see any ideas brought over from Zelda II into Zelda III(SNES).

I realize this is a strange example for comparing sequels to new IPs, but when looking at the three zelda games, there are such big changes in ideas from Zelda I to II, and then a glorious return to form in Zelda III. I think this is a good middle ground for companies to follow, with enough freedom to try new things, but also iteration to help with "sharpening" the games they already have. I think this is somewhat lacking in today's market though.

 

[Shubh_C63]

I am actually extremely fine with longer dev times and fewer releases. they just have to be AAA larger than life releases and I am done for next few months.

According to the nos of year that generation had can you draw up an average time taken per game per generation in decimals. Would be cool to see.

 

[Laconian Sword]

From an engineering perspective, this trend makes sense when you consider that the complexity of games has exploded over the last 20 years. Building business software is very difficult these days, let alone a modern game that pushes technological boundaries and simulates entire worlds. Once a company has invested years of development and millions of dollars into a game engine, assets, and design, it's much harder to just throw that away and start something new from scratch. Just look at how many people scroll by when you beat something like God of War. They're massive undertakings.

 

[RydonStarLives]

From an engineering perspective, this trend makes sense when you consider that the complexity of games has exploded over the last 20 years. Building business software is very difficult these days, let alone a modern game that pushes technological boundaries and simulates entire worlds. Once a company has invested years of development and millions of dollars into a game engine, assets, and design, it's much harder to just throw that away and start something new from scratch. Just look at how many people scroll by when you beat something like God of War. They're massive undertakings.

Oh for sure, You can see that start to happen within the PS2 era, when games like Final Fantasy, which had always scrapped and re done artwork, battle systems, etc. on every iteration, create a game sequel to one of the numbered franchise, FF X-2. I'm sure the meeting went something along the lines of, "FF X is selling like hot cakes, how quickly can we make another one?" and the reply would have been, "probably another 3-4 years with the same size team." So then the higher ups said, "Nah, screw that, just re use all the art assests we already have and create a sequel to FF X"

I do understand what an epic undertaking it is to create a cutting edge game nowadays, but I am more curious if this has actually increased or if it was just as tough back in the day as well. It isn't like they had all the knowledge we have today, and also all the tools for streamlining things like we do now.

I would like to look at development time spent on titles, but I am not sure where I could actually gather that data. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.

 

[Laconian Sword]

I do understand what an epic undertaking it is to create a cutting edge game nowadays, but I am more curious if this has actually increased or if it was just as tough back in the day as well. It isn't like they had all the knowledge we have today, and also all the tools for streamlining things like we do now

I'm not in the game industry, but I'd say that while our tools and practices are lightyears ahead of where they were even ten years ago, building real production software is actually much, much harder today than it used to be.

These days, areas of development (front end, back end, engine, platform, UI, mobile) have each become universes in their own right, so we've had to specialize more. A lot more knowledge and expertise is needed overall, we have to worry about fully utilizing multicore CPUs and GPUs (i.e. parallel programming), scaling globally distributed 24/7 systems resilient to inevitable failures, much more complex graphics and physics techniques, etc. As the size of a code base increases, the interdependencies also increase exponentially, making it incredibly hard to reason about and fully understand. This of course results in very difficult to diagnose issues and all the patches everyone likes to complain about.

In contrast, 20-30 years ago a single engineer could understand the whole thing end to end more or less. Far less code, far fewer external dependencies, and a much simpler operating model you could basically simulate in your head.

I suspect that the absolute development time in years may not be so different for games today, but the difference in total man-years is likely huge.