Is Game Development getting too Expensive?

[Echo35]

Interesting article from GameLife about how the traditional multi-million dollar big budget games may be "standing on a burning oil rig" as it was put - http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/02/dice-blockbuster-games/

[TechSY730]

Interesting article from GameLife about how the traditional multi-million dollar big budget games may be "standing on a burning oil rig" as it was put - http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/02/dice-blockbuster-games/

It doesn't have to be. Sure, getting all the "frills" of a game (ultra fancy, hi-def graphics, custom made sounds, a professional voice acting cast, tons of marketing, etc, etc.) can REALLY add to the cost of a game. But if you don't need to go with all of this, you don't need all that money. After all, they can only help to add to a game, not make it. At its core, a game is about gameplay. That is something that, while not necessarily cheap, it's not a expensive as all those "professional grade frills".

Does that mean that game makers should focus less on frills, not fundamentally (though I think many big game companies are focusing on the frills so much they are sacrificing attention on game play, but that is not a fundamental problem). It does mean that you can make a good game without "professional grade frills".

Admittedly, some game frills are needed. Unless you want a "standard OS components only" windows or a pure text based adventure with no fancyness with the command line environment, you need some sort of graphics. Plus, there is the whole hairy issue of good UI design.

With no frills at all, you basically just have a game engine, which while useful, is not a game. The costs come from trying to put more into the frills, which while this can be a good thing, is not a fundamental part of the game-play.

So to draw this long meandering ramble to a close, no, games do not have to be this expensive to be competitive (in an economic sense) games, but it sure can make them look, sound, and feel nicer. ("can" being the key word here)

[Entrenched Homperson]

ex. Dead Space would have been alot less intresting if they hadn't invested in the atmostphere (Voice acting, custom music/ sound enviroment). IDK, Dead Space is my example of how good a big budget game CAN be, and the good things that can be done with that budget.

[Echo35]

ex. Dead Space would have been alot less intresting if they hadn't invested in the atmostphere (Voice acting, custom music/ sound enviroment). IDK, Dead Space is my example of how good a big budget game CAN be, and the good things that can be done with that budget.

Not necessarily true. Penumbra Overture and Amnesia (Both indie games from the same developers) are a HELL of a lot scarier than Dead Space and probably didn't even cost 1/4 of what Dead Space did. IMO, a majority of big budget games these days use all those frills and fancy money gobbling things to mask fundamental flaws, such as good game design for example.

To use something we are all very familiar with, compare, say AI War (A low budget game) to something like Starcraft or Supreme Commander (High budget games). Yes I know the core game play is somewhat different and not entirely fairly comparable, but the basic comparison is there. Yes, admittedly AI War lacks anywhere near the graphical polish and general shiny of the latter games, but it more than makes up for it with depth and game play. The same holds true for a lot of games out there (And is one of the many reasons I hardly ever play modern games). I know I'll probably draw a lot of crap for saying this, but I totally agree with what Tom Chick says about Blizzard. They take stale, fundamental and basic game play and polish it to such a degree that people mistake it for innovation.

[Sunshine!]

I'm going to agree with Chick.  The thing is though, sometimes it's nice to have just the basic, fundamentals, and if they're polished to perfection then it can work out.  It's like Starcraft 2 is the paragon of basic RTS gaming, potentially, and because that now exists, other game developers should now implicitly be encouraged by its existence to try to innovate in RTS so that they don't have to compete against Starcraft 2.

The other problem is, those "innovative" games are often bug-ridden, balance problems, or lack other complex depth.  For all its simplicity, the tactical depth of Starcraft 1 was done really well without the shtick that passes for balance in a lot of other games.  A lot of other games (like Command and Conquer series) will give certain teams dominance over certain aspects of the game - giving one team air superiority, one team armor superiority, the third infantry superiority or whatever.  This kind of balancing forces players into one kind of playstyle, which is boring and (haha) one-dimensional.  I don't know about professional starcraft (since I abhor the concept), but at least in my experience I've found it necessary to, regardless of race, have combined-arms mixed formations of troops.  It's not just "spam tanks, rush," it's  "okay, need zealots, need dragoons, need air support, need detectors, need templars..."  Sure, you can try to just spam one unit, and sometimes it works (marines, hydralisks, zealots.  battlecruisers?), but it won't work as effectively.

And therein lies my issue with supcom.  It's "spam highest tier, go" because of the way the tier system works with higher tier units being strictly better than lower tier units, and no way to upgrade lower tier units to keep them competitive.  In this sense, I think Supcom 2 worked out okay with its research system, but it too lacks depth in that it has like, 3 types of units total.  More defined roles for its units + more variety would've been great - interceptors vs. air superiority fighters (interceptors to race across the map and shoot down that experimental before it gets to you, air superiority slower but more maneuverable and longer airtime), the tanks vs assault bots balance being less "this one has health, this one does damage" (which is ridiculous because assault bots are autopositioned in front of the tanks, where they shouldn't be).

[eRe4s3r]

Game development isn't getting too expensive, its just too busy reiterating the same crap over and over just with prettier pictures.

I would gladly play a game in the style of a 1990 PC game (BG2/Infinity Engine) if it actually would do something new and unique. maybe simulate a space battle cruiser down to hull holes, decks, people, daily life, story and character development or romances or even a full blown life support simulation (heat/humidity/air/gas/water) - heck i'd be glad for more RPG's in the style of BG2 (just you know, with a smaller party ;p). It just needs basic pixel or standard fare render art and thats it. The art is only a carrier after all - it adds NOTHING to a game if theres no good writing, engaging story and something else besides gameplay.

Just good gameplay does not make a successful game just like good graphics don't. It also needs a story to tell, emotions to evoke, characters to remember or situations to resolve that haunt one for months afterwards, or maybe just inspire one or make one happy in a freeform kind of way.

Sadly, that only applies to real gamers, not the "console kids" which does not just insult console gamers but rather "shooters and only shooters" gamers.

Ehm, so buttom line, no game development is not too expensive. Only trying to out compete the gameplay AAA games reiterate every year is (too expensive).

[Echo35]

Game development isn't getting too expensive, its just too busy reiterating the same crap over and over just with prettier pictures.

That too. Stuff is so stale these days, when just about any game comes out that I'm interested in, I first look over my Steam list or what console games I own and see how many games I already have that are just like it. 90% of the time, I end up being unable to justify the purchase. Outside of my newly acquired PSP, I don't remember the last time I bought any brand new AAA title right when it came out. In fact, one of my jobs is at a used game store and so far in 2011, 100% of my gaming purchases have been games and systems that are at least 5 years old (Just got an NES a few weeks ago actually. Excitebike and Mario 3 are still fun games ).

I would gladly play a game in the style of a 1990 PC game (BG2/Infinity Engine) if it actually would do something new and unique. maybe simulate a space battle cruiser down to hull holes, decks, people, daily life, story and character development or romances or even a full blown life support simulation (heat/humidity/air/gas/water) - heck i'd be glad for more RPG's in the style of BG2 (just you know, with a smaller party ;p). It just needs basic pixel or standard fare render art and thats it. The art is only a carrier after all - it adds NOTHING to a game if theres no good writing, engaging story and something else besides gameplay.

Oddly enough, I've been seeing a LOT of pixel art and retro style lately, particularly in the indie market. Not that I'm complaining, I do like it.

Sadly, that only applies to real gamers, not the "console kids" which does not just insult console gamers but rather "shooters and only shooters" gamers.

Ehm, so buttom line, no game development is not too expensive. Only trying to out compete the gameplay AAA games reiterate every year is (too expensive).

Even more sadly, those people make up a huge majority of the gaming market, and since most gaming companies out there exist solely to print money, all they will ever do is make cookie cutter reskins of last year's popular game. Another reason I have such huge faith and hope in the indie market.

[Entrenched Homperson]

I didn't like Penumbra as much, I don't know why. It was very good all the way around, I guess I just didn't get into as much. Plus there where a lot of silly pathing issues that made me laugh, like getting up in the roof and walking over monsters and things. Was a very good game, and the mobs where very cool and very unique.

I guess pretty much the balance game creators are going for today is pretty much between PRETTY <-----> GAMEPLAY and where a game ends up in that scheme comes down to what they can afford/think of.

I love SCII and Ai War. SCII is the best out there for its generation of games, but new games are gonna come out that beat it for innovation. AI War's gameplay is really unmatched anywhere.

I gotta admit though, I can't wait for a day when games like AI War have SCII pretty graphics

[Echo35]

I gotta admit though, I can't wait for a day when games like AI War have SCII pretty graphics

As much as I could care less about graphics, I must agree, there are a number of games I would love to see the modern era of graphics rendering applied to, even if just for one play just to see what it'd be like. Then again, I think some of the charm of games like that IS their low end graphics. Nethack and Dwarf Fortress wouldn't be nearly as entertaining and silly if they had anything other than ASCII.

[eRe4s3r]

The sad thing is that games like SC2 sell. What does that tell us. You don't have to do anything at all. Just ctrl+c "sc1" and ctrl+v "sc2" - put it in a flashy engine, polish it up till it shines and call it a day.

Blizzard is the anti-thesis of innovative gameplay.

[Echo35]

The sad thing is that games like SC2 sell. What does that tell us. You don't have to do anything at all. Just ctrl+c "sc1" and ctrl+v "sc2" - put it in a flashy engine, polish it up till it shines and call it a day.

Blizzard is the anti-thesis of innovative gameplay.

+1 Rep? Silly forums lacking features.

[Entrenched Homperson]

Blizzard is not antithesis of innovation, but the perfection of it's genre. No rts in that style can beat SCII for what it is, that micro intensive 10 minute battle kinda game. That USED to be innovation, don't forget. Back in 1996 Starcraft was new and people where like, RTS? WTF is that? If it wasn't for blizzard popularizing many styles of game in the public eye there wouldnt have been alot to innovate on in the first place. Blizzard is just running out of steam now, and there making there last, good games with all the bells and whistles, because I don't see them making anything really worth playing coming from them in the next decade. They've gone as far as they can as a developer in RTS, RPG, and Massively Multiplayer. Watch, I bet they come out with an Xbox or PS game in a little while after the SCII expansions are done and they have nothing else to pull in money. And its gonna be a stinker

What blizzard is is an oldman who has retired, and is making his masterpieces before he dies.

[Echo35]

Blizzard is not antithesis of innovation, but the perfection of it's genre. No rts in that style can beat SCII for what it is, that micro intensive 10 minute battle kinda game. That USED to be innovation, don't forget. Back in 1996 Starcraft was new and people where like, RTS? WTF is that? If it wasn't for blizzard popularizing many styles of game in the public eye there wouldnt have been alot to innovate on in the first place.

Yep, they did do a lot back then, and what have they done SINCE then?

Also, don't think that Blizard created the RTS. That award goes to Dune II (First modern style RTS) and Command & Conquer (First online RTS). Also, Warcraft was out WAY before SC was, SC was pretty much just a reskin at that point.

[Entrenched Homperson]

Yep, they did do a lot back then, and what have they done SINCE then?

That's what I'm saying. Nothing, they broke their ground, now it's just touch up work on the style they polished and sells.

Also, don't think that Blizard created the RTS. That award goes to Dune II (First modern style RTS) and Command & Conquer (First online RTS). Also, Warcraft was out WAY before SC was, SC was pretty much just a reskin at that point.

Starcraft really broke RTS for the world though, at least for me. I missed alot of mid 90s gaming cause I was a kid, and starcraft was one of the first games I played.  Before that though, I was like 5 years old  You have to give credit to this company for popularizing things, they make things stick, and get it into people's brains. That creates larger markets for even games like AI War to profit from.

[BobTheJanitor]

I don't remember the last time I bought any brand new AAA title right when it came out.

I'm the same way. My one exception is anything that Valve puts out. As soon as the Portal 2 pre-order showed up on Steam, I was on it. But any other gaming company? Forget it. I'll wait for the price drop and inevitable 50% off sale a year or so down the line.

Edit: For mainstream studios of course. Indies are different.