Support NeoGAF

[quickwhips]

You think digital downloads would fix a lot of the problem since your not having to press disc and it would help stop piracy a little as well(not that I think that is a factor at all). Also cutting out the middle men would mean you could sell at a lower cost and make more profits. I don't see why everyone isn't embracing this more. If I have holes in my theory I'm sorry in advance.

 

[mhayze]

I think that the market is broad and deep enough - i.e. there are enough games being made at the indy end of the spectrum all the way through triple-A blockbusters, that I am genuinely excited by the prospect of high budget next gen games. Enough money is spent on just the marketing (never mind development) of a game like MW3 to fund 'ultra high budget' development for two AAA-focused games for the next gen

Spoiler

OK I made those stats up, but I bet they're in the realm of reality

.
That's not to say that there will be a COD game with no marketing, but, just like movies, it matters where you spend that budget.

Secondly, there has been enough of an accelerating trend of broadening the price range and expectations for Xbox Live Arcade and PSN games this gen that I think that trend will only accelerate in the next gen. If there are fewer 'mediocre' games aiming for the $60 price point then I think that's a good thing for both studios and gamers. Set the expectations right with a proper price point and watch review scores change. A sub-80 metacritic rated new full priced game might have been a 90+ PSN game at half-price, and made a studio more money. Studios don't have to build games with 8 figure budgets - and I have a feeling that digital only games in the next gen will embarrass current gen $60 games, even with a fraction of their budget. So the only thing to be afraid of is making mediocre full-priced games, and as an informed consumer I'm not that concerned about that. If studios stick to the old realities and get bit, then they have it coming.

I think my biggest concern is the Japanese studios - they have been increasingly sidelined this gen, I hope that they find a way to become more relevant broadly accepted in the next gen. There's no doubt that they make hits, hopefully the misses don't sink them.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

Stop making big budget games.

 

[Maedhros]

Seriously... just stop using this ammount of money in every single project. A good game doesn't needs big ammounts of money to be made.

 

[rvy]

This dude wastes tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of people on a shitty mascot plat former, I'd rather hear from someone who isn't fucking up so bad in this gen.

This dude designed Deus EX and produced System Shock, he can say whatever he wants to. Even if he sucks at math.

 

[Eusis]

You know, considering marketing and the fact they don't see all $60 of that I do imagine his math really may not be as off as it might seem. Certainly you wouldn't want to skimp on advertising once you invested 200 mil into a game. Nevermind how that size budget ONLY works on sales in that area at all.

And... advancing hardware would be just fine if every damn major publisher didn't see it as a reason to rocket budgets up a ton. Look at how some of those Wii games look in Dolphin, I'd appreciate it if developers aimed for that or at least the equivalent for 360/PS3 games rather than pushing boundaries every time with next-gen consoles and making their games unprofitable. That, and customers can ACCEPT that level rather than derisively blowing games off for not being pretty enough.

You think digital downloads would fix a lot of the problem since your not having to press disc and it would help stop piracy a little as well(not that I think that is a factor at all). Also cutting out the middle men would mean you could sell at a lower cost and make more profits. I don't see why everyone isn't embracing this more. If I have holes in my theory I'm sorry in advance.

Accessibility for those with bad bandwidth mainly, also the long term ability to get some games but that's more my own concern here. In some ways it really would be best for bigger games, if they don't want to put too much into packaging they arguably may as well just take the next step and scrap that entirely.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

What console games cost $200 million to make?

combined with PR and marketing: Mass Effect 3?

too bad they didn't just spend it on the damn game instead. I mean, I don't think production is the really expensive part (Epic has stated 35 million per project as a sell-line for UE3, right?), it's the rest that comes along with it that doubles it.

And as much as I detest the idea of PR, marketing and other efforts of fake predictability at too high a price, I would be a fool to say that I haven't seen the evidence of a no-marketing release with subsequent 'bomba' as a result.

However, all of those are done by big companies with what might be called a 'PR pipeline' of its own. Indy's who release with no advertising of their own (but on Steam) seem less troubled saleswise than the same scenario by a big publisher. It might just seem that way though. But I'm willing to bet that community efforts intervene more for the first than the latter. (not that this means anything when we're talking budgets in the millions)

At any rate, our backlogs will decrease, so that's at least something.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

I see a lot of people have already forgotten Pandemic, Free Radical, Factor 5...

 

[Sentenza]

Holy shit, always the same boring nonsense.

Ok, let's recap, even if some point has already been made:
1- just for a start, if you have a 200 million dollars budget to make your game and you are selling 20 million copies of it at 60$, that's 1.2 billions. You really *should* see a profit of it. If not, someone is screwing you with your business.
2- Better hardware doesn't necessarily imply major costs. Hell, in many cases better hardware could even make development more simple and cheap (no need to thinker too much for optimization, no need to downscale textures and models, etc).
3- Just don't make a 200 million dollars game? Problem solved.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Well for one thing there's the cost of R&D (i.e. figuring out what the bloody thing is truly capable of and how exactly one programs their games to do that). PC language is much more universal so while it is definitely higher tier and very expensive, developing for brand new powerful systems can potentially be more expensive (even if they're not quite as powerful).

But don't they go through that on PC's when the next gen of graphics cards come out? If anything I thought it would be easier because the consoles are standardized. On PC's they have to try and account for an insane permutation of builds from the OS to the graphics cards and everything in between. Sure they set minimum and recommended limits, but I see threads on here at times with people talking about having to tweak their PC configs to get a game to run correctly. I just thought the QA budget alone could skyrocket when it comes to that.

 

[Nemo]

However, all of those are done by big companies with what might be called a 'PR pipeline' of its own. Indy's who release with no advertising of their own (but on Steam) seem less troubled saleswise than the same scenario by a big publisher.P

The thing is, let that small company make 100k or something under a million and they are succesful, not just in their eyes but also to the rest of the world. Making that kind of money is no joke. To a publisher however, it's not even worth the time, let alone the investment they have to put in. If they make a million they probably don't even look at it as breaking even

It's this fucking minset publishers need to get out of their heads. With all the losses they're making it seems to me that making a few million per year is a lot better than betting big like they're doing and getting 100 millions in the red

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

3- Just don't make a 200 million dollars game? Problem solved.

this point doesn't really hold. The fear I'm assuming is that these high budget games become the only things that are notably successful while everything else isn't as successful for one reason or another, probably due to perception. So it forces studios to either match the high budgets and produce something at that level...or not do it and risk a ton.

 

[Sentenza]

this point doesn't really hold. The fear I'm assuming is that these high budget games become the only things that are notably successful while everything else isn't as successful for one reason or another, probably due to perception..

Yeah, no. It doesn't happen.

 

[lednerg]

The thing that should scare people about high costs is the lack of risk-taking by publishers that comes along with it. If you're going to be spending hundres of millions on a game, you're going to make damn sure it can reach the widest audience possible - ie. the lowest common denominator. If your games are venturing towards unproven territory, then your stockholders will dump your ass in no time. A market full of 200+ million dollar games is one full of safe bets and not a whole lot else.

 

[teh_pwn]

It's good for gaming, this fear. It's the natural selection that will weed out the EAs and boost the Cdprojekts.

Learn to manage costs and balance features & dev time, and you win.

You can take current gen game engines and put in higher res textures, increase AA/AF all pretty much for free.

 

[Riposte]

It's good for gaming, this fear. It's the natural selection that will weed out the EAs and boost the Cdprojekts.

Learn to manage costs and balance features & dev time, and you win.

You can take current gen game engines and put in higher res textures, increase AA/AF all pretty much for free.

Or do work in a country where you don't have to pay your employees much.

 

[teh_pwn]

Or do work in a country where you don't have to pay your employees much.

Do you have numbers that breaks this down?

I'm not seeing it. Suppose you have a 2 year dev cycle compare with 200 employees paid 40k USD less. That's 16M USD. I don't think that makes up for lavish marketing campaigns, grainy compressed CG for no reason, and needlessly modeling everything in high detail.

 

[Orca]

If you don't take the next step, you're inevitable gonna get hate for it. We've had plenty of people around here who felt that Rayman Origins wasn't worth $60 due to its low budget, who knows how this will be next gen ?

I think it may be a bit naive to think that you can easily just stop spending more money, just as it's ridiculous how some people tend to put all the blame of increasing costs on the devs.

I don't think I saw anyone that said they didn't think it wasn't worth $60 because of the budget behind it. There were a lot who simply don't value 2D sidescrolling platformers that highly anymore, even when they're extremely good. That's no different from the people who seem forced to hit whatever the latest FPS thread is and proclaim they're tired of 'cookie cutter' FPS and won't buy until it hits $30 or lower

Also, many believed it was going to be an XBLA release, a problem that lay with the marketing behind it not getting the message out after it switched from an episodic release, so a price tag 3-4x higher than they expected is reasonable grounds for saying they're no longer interested.

 

[Eusis]

Actually, I wonder if it's more that certain types of games can't fly without high budgets rather than games not flying without high budgets period. Stuff like Angry Birds (yes yes) does really well, while it seems like stuff like Tactics Ogre was reasonably successful and Deadly Premonition became a hit with people, though I half wonder if $20 was suicide when it could've been $30 or even $40. Still, I can see why people wouldn't care about the latest CoD style shooter unless the budget were massive, and for large open world games it can be borderline necessary just for world building, even if the game is hideous (see PS2 GTAs, and GTAIV aged rather badly.)

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Devs has to use all that extra power smarter, not try to use the same old developing techniques but with more man power.

Procedural generation when it comes to textures and such for an example.

 

[Orca]

Actually, I wonder if it's more that certain types of games can't fly without high budgets rather than games not flying without high budgets period. Stuff like Angry Birds (yes yes) does really well, while it seems like stuff like Tactics Ogre was reasonably successful and Deadly Premonition became a hit with people, though I half wonder if $20 was suicide when it could've been $30 or even $40. Still, I can see why people wouldn't care about the latest CoD style shooter unless the budget were massive, and for large open world games it can be borderline necessary just for world building, even if the game is hideous (see PS2 GTAs, and GTAIV aged rather badly.)

At this point couldn't you make CoD fairly cheaply though? They must have a huge store of assets from past games that could be modified fairly quickly for use in a 'new' level. The big money comes in the huge advertising campaign, but at this point couldn't they scale that back as well?

 

[Glass Joe]

It's similar to the arcade industry crash. Why did the arcades die? Because consoles and PC games caught up and similar experiences could be had at home, right? Well, not exactly. Dedicated units can always be more powerful than a home console. However, technology and programming gets expensive. The problem was that in order for arcades to make money off a machine, instead of putting in a quarter for a quick play, you were putting 50 cents, and then a buck. Consumers decided it wasn't worth it and stopped going.

As consoles get more and more powerful, production budgets will continue to rise. Fewer companies will be able to make games, and those companies won't be able to produce as many titles. Innovation could give way to playing it safe.

The typical solution would be to raise game prices yet again. That would reach a point where consumers could yet again say "wait, it's not worth it" and stop playing.

Nintendo was on the right track when they underpowered the Wii and focused on innovation, just they were a couple generations too early. Still, it paid off for them. The problem with Playstation 5 / 6 or Xbox 1080 will be that there won't be as many quality titles. They'll take too long to make, they'll be too expensive to produce, and they'll cost around $100 to the consumer.

Gaming can continue, but you don't need an expensive machine or lavish budget to create/play Angry Birds, etc. So it will be interesting to see how things stack up a couple generations from now.

 

[nib95]

Hold on, what game costs $200 million? Don't games like Gears, Uncharted, COD etc cost $20-$50mil to make?

 

[Eusis]

The typical solution would be to raise game prices yet again. That would reach a point where consumers could yet again say "wait, it's not worth it" and stop playing.

I wonder about that. Yeah, obviously it was an issue for arcade, but you can't just wait on price drops like with console games, plus there's the issue of getting to OWN the product rather than play it for 5-15 minutes. I imagine if they set things up right they could still profit from a rise, IE if games can be profitable for everyone on $10 or $20 off sales.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

2- Better hardware doesn't necessarily imply major costs. Hell, in many cases better hardware could even make development more simple and cheap (no need to thinker too much for optimization, no need to downscale textures and models, etc).

Again guys... this isn't true.

You will always need to downscale models. Tessellation will make it even more necessary. You'll need the high poly model, a middling poly model, and low. Just so the act of tessellation doesn't smooth corners more than necessary. That very high poly model is pretty much unnecessary for anything other than closeups. You can't have a 10 million poly model walking around currently. You'd just end up spending your memory budget on nothing as every polygon gets a turn at unseen shader ops.

So until this software issue is resolved (backface culling) you will never see an unaltered ZBrush character model running around.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I'm sure alot of my favorite companies will die.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The thing about insane development costs is that from where I'm standing, it's on the verge of looking like "the emperor has no clothes".

Dev costs this generation shot up, yes.

But after a few years of coming to grips with the technology, smaller teams and developers here and there are starting to turn out games that "read" like games that have ten times their budget in most, if not all, aspects.

But for big studios, the song is always "oh gawd, our next game is going to cost twice as much as our last game even though it's the same generation, same tech, same platform, and oh yeah our next game is shorter with less content BECAUSE IT'S JUST SO EXPENSIVE!"

Wait, wat?

At this point I'm almost starting to wonder who is skimming where and lining a swiss bank account with dat fat loot.

 

[Eusis]

The thing about insane development costs is that from where I'm standing, it's on the verge of looking like "the emperor has no clothes".

Dev costs this generation shot up, yes.

But after a few years of coming to grips with the technology, smaller teams and developers here and there are starting to turn out games that "read" like games that have ten times their budget in most, if not all, aspects.

But for big studios, the song is always "oh gawd, our next game is going to cost twice as much as our last game even though it's the same generation, same tech, same platform, and oh yeah our next game is shorter with less content BECAUSE IT'S JUST SO EXPENSIVE!"

Wait, wat?

At this point I'm almost starting to wonder who is skimming where and lining a swiss bank account with dat fat loot.

And frankly I doubt most consumers are even that discerning about visuals. MW1 won over Crysis for GameTrailers best looking games in 2007, and finally getting around to playing MW3, to be honest I think the IQ looks equal or BETTER than most non-60 FPS games, and it's (technically anyway) running on the same engine Quake 3 Arena did. Couldn't you just give a hard cap on visuals and tell developers to "deal with it"?

 

[bgassassin]

I think what some people talking about Spector's math are forgetting that the developers aren't making 100% of that. I wish I could find it again, but I saw a chart breaking down how much each party (retailer, devs, platform holder, etc.) make from a game and devs were far from the largest earner in that breakdown.

 

[Elixist]

This argument holds no weight whatsoever for me. Spend what you can make back, just because hardware is more powerful doesnt mean you have to make a blockbuster. I can only assume tools and such should be even more efficient, so know your audience and plan accordingly. Xbla, Psn, Ios, and Steam are there for you kno matter what your vision or pricetag.

 

[Eusis]

I think what some people talking about Spector's math are forgetting that the developers aren't making 100% of that. I wish I could find it again, but I saw a chart breaking down how much each party (retailer, devs, platform holder, etc.) make from a game and devs were far from the largest earner in that breakdown.

I remember similar from EGM way back, though that was when the PS1 was new and was to contrast CD and Cart costs. Still, I recall the actual profit per copy even then was something like $10, maybe $20. Plus like said that budget PROBABLY doesn't include marketting, which depending on the publisher could shoot it up another $200 million OR MORE. Going with the ratio MW has with development-to-marketting it'd be $600 million or something equally preposterous, you'd probably need to sell 100 million to profit at that point.

 

[Oddduck]

You don't need a game developer to tell you that the budget of games will get more and more insane.

Common sense is enough to figure that out.

 

[bgassassin]

I remember similar from EGM way back, though that was when the PS1 was new and was to contrast CD and Cart costs. Still, I recall the actual profit per copy even then was something like $10, maybe $20. Plus like said that budget PROBABLY doesn't include marketting, which depending on the publisher could shoot it up another $200 million OR MORE. Going with the ratio MW has with development-to-marketting it'd be $600 million or something equally preposterous, you'd probably need to sell 100 million to profit at that point.

If we're talking about the same thing (though I think what I'm talking about is from a paper someone wrote), the retailer made the most with like $20 out of the $60 retail cost. The dev's portion was like $8-10, though I lean more toward $8 based on vague memory.

 

[The Albatross]

There is a problem with my brain and I can't read "Warren Spector" without thinking "Arlen Spector," and I just think, "wtf?"

The thing that really scares developers and publishers is the games that everybody is talking about, and the games that make the most profit, are sold for a $1 and take a few weeks to develop. That terrifies them.

 

[Haunted]

I think what some people talking about Spector's math are forgetting that the developers aren't making 100% of that. I wish I could find it again, but I saw a chart breaking down how much each party (retailer, devs, platform holder, etc.) make from a game and devs were far from the largest earner in that breakdown.

If you break it down like that, you have to break up the costs as well - devs don't pay for marketing, production or distribution, which would be the only way for a game's raw development costs to cross over the 200 million mark at this point.

I remember similar from EGM way back, though that was when the PS1 was new and was to contrast CD and Cart costs. Still, I recall the actual profit per copy even then was something like $10, maybe $20. Plus like said that budget PROBABLY doesn't include marketting, which depending on the publisher could shoot it up another $200 million OR MORE. Going with the ratio MW has with development-to-marketting it'd be $600 million or something equally preposterous, you'd probably need to sell 100 million to profit at that point.

No game has even come close to costing 200 million in development costs alone. TORs 300 million included marketing and other costs (unique to MMOs), development costs are rumoured to be 130-150 million, which would make it the most expensive game ever made. The next largest development budgets we know about hover around 100 million (RDR, GTAIV, APB) and it's assumed that marketing costs are included there as well.

It's true that MW2 had a marketing budget that was three times the size of the development budget, but that made for a total of 200 million (150+50). That's not to say that some mega projects might reach this mark in the future, but we're not there at this point.


That said, 8 digits is fucking expensive. Too expensive for many devs to fail and live. There's no need to exaggerate these numbers and his math was simply completely off here.

 

[Escape Goat]

how much profit do these AAA games make after its all said and done? Not that you can base anything off these few games but I'd be interested to know.

 

[bgassassin]

If you break it down like that, you have to break up the costs as well - devs don't pay for marketing, production or distribution, which would be the only way for a game's raw development costs to cross over the 200 million mark at this point.

I know his $200M comment was not realistic to begin with. All I pointing out was why he could say the cost, the sales amount, and still say it amounts to a loss.

Side note: The only breakdowns I've been able to find have a lower amount for retailers and focuses on the publisher's portion.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

im still confused about the costs of development going up in some kind of exponential fashion. i realize that you have to hire people to create hi-res art, textures, etc. but i keep seeing more and more videos of middleware and game engines making things literally as easy as click around a mouse for a bit and having a gorgeous landscape full of trees and fully lit, and then you click another button and spawn in it real time to test it out.

i feel like all of these companies making middleware and engines took notice how this gen took a lot of people by surprise and are producing a lot of innovative solutions with how things are moving forward. multicore/threading was a new thing this gen, it's not changing into 3D cpu's next gen or quantum computing, just more threading more cores etc. same with pixel counts, etc. and even that's not really going up much since we could barely get many games running at native 720p this gen.

im not saying i have all the answers and have an understanding, im asking someone that DOES to explain it to me simply and logically. otherwise i will just grow suspicious. also: last i checked 60 x 20mil = way more than 200mil...?

 

[FieryBalrog]

Not only does Warren Spector suck at math, the best selling $60 games of this gen sold significantly more than 20 million.

 

[daedalius]

Maybe we'll actually be able to use all of those 2048x2048 maps we create, but have to scale down to 512x512.

Would make a pretty big difference in texture quality.

Personally I'm hoping for larger, more expansive environments, less load screens, and better AI.

Oh, and much better faces if they are going to try and go super realistic. Nothing pulls me out of an experience worse than a poorly done pseudo-realistic face; would rather have it be more stylized if they can't get the realistic fidelity in there.

 

[SaintMadeOfPlaster]

Not only does Warren Spector suck at math, the best selling $60 games of this gen sold significantly more than 20 million.

Pretty much this.

Although I do agree that game budgets are getting ridiculous, and if they continue growing the way they are, will result in some terrible things.

 

[cartman414]

PC is home to nothing but pirates and entitled gamers that don't even believe in paying for multiplayer. I'm not sure whether that makes them worse than console gamers who buy used games. Let me ask Crytek and get back to you on that one.

Lolwut? So just because it's done on XBox Live it should be an industry standard?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Maybe we'll actually be able to use all of those 2048x2048 maps we create, but have to scale down to 512x512.

Would make a pretty big difference in texture quality.

Personally I'm hoping for larger, more expansive environments, less load screens, and better AI.

Oh, and much better faces if they are going to try and go super realistic. Nothing pulls me out of an experience worse than a poorly done pseudo-realistic face; would rather have it be more stylized if they can't get the realistic fidelity in there.

Now this stuff is a completely realistic outlook. The way models are made is unlikely to change, but lots of very fast RAM and texturing issues can all but disappear. Though I will always find 2048x2048 teeth excessive.

 

[scytheavatar]

If you break it down like that, you have to break up the costs as well - devs don't pay for marketing, production or distribution, which would be the only way for a game's raw development costs to cross over the 200 million mark at this point.

Have you guys even read the article? WTF?

"Once we can do Pixar-quality graphics rendered in real time with interactivity, I could see games costing $200 million to make and all of a sudden you have to sell a lot of games just to break even, so I'm a little worried someone's going to do that.

"Someone's going to spend... well, there are already people spending $100 million on games, that's not even insane anymore."

He never said that games cost $200 million to make presently, an outragous amount like $100 million is considered "not insane" and there will come a time where there will be pressure for devs to make $200 million games. From self-entitled gamers who wouldn't buy games that don't have cutting edge graphics.

im still confused about the costs of development going up in some kind of exponential fashion. i realize that you have to hire people to create hi-res art, textures, etc. but i keep seeing more and more videos of middleware and game engines making things literally as easy as click around a mouse for a bit and having a gorgeous landscape full of trees and fully lit, and then you click another button and spawn in it real time to test it out.

i feel like all of these companies making middleware and engines took notice how this gen took a lot of people by surprise and are producing a lot of innovative solutions with how things are moving forward. multicore/threading was a new thing this gen, it's not changing into 3D cpu's next gen or quantum computing, just more threading more cores etc. same with pixel counts, etc. and even that's not really going up much since we could barely get many games running at native 720p this gen.

im not saying i have all the answers and have an understanding, im asking someone that DOES to explain it to me simply and logically. otherwise i will just grow suspicious. also: last i checked 60 x 20mil = way more than 200mil...?

Let me ask you: why do you think people are interested in lying about the rising devleopment costs if they are not rising? What benefits do they have if the not so good graphics takes as much effort to make as the good graphics? Why do you think that you know more about game development than the guys who actually develope games?

 

[Elsolar]

People grossly overestimate how expensive it is to make your game pretty, and gross underestimate how expensive it is to fill your game with voice acting, motion capture, and unique animations. Games that try to be like movies will have budgets like movies, games that use their resources less wastefully will cost less. Hopefully the industry will recognize this before it drowns in its own obsession with Hollywood, but even if it doesn't, I wouldn't terribly mind if indie devs and the Eastern Europeans inherited the industry.

 

[subversus]

Nope, they had real financial problems and had to let go many team members before Witcher 2 was finished.

2008

 

[Sentenza]

This argument holds no weight whatsoever for me. Spend what you can make back.

Exactly. That's pretty much all there is to say.

Lolwut? So just because it's done on XBox Live it should be an industry standard?

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[NullPointer]

I think he was being sarcastic.

Too subtle?

Yes, sarcastic. Definitely sarcastic. Including a healthy dose of snark.

 

[dragonelite]

First of all i hope that was a typo because 1 billion surplus is not a loss unless he is stupid.

And Why the fuck do you need 700 man working on a 3 platform game. What are you making a cgi movie going with the game?. Stupid people/studio will go down smart companies will not and can probably suppress cost and make devs cost go down compare to this gen. And how can the average game cost from what i heard is 40~60 million rise to 200 million unless you work fucking inefficient. Unless they are making render farms to render those shitty game breaking CGI cutscenes. I really hope Next gen won't need cgi cutscenes. Just give me a button prompt to looks in the direction where something cools happens. If i want to look i will.

 

[Erethian]

Not only does Warren Spector suck at math, the best selling $60 games of this gen sold significantly more than 20 million.

His basic point is right on the money, though. Console games are getting too expensive to make, with not enough people to buy it.

And it's already obvious that game companies are deciding to go down the route of charging more for each game, rather than expanding the audience.