Next generation looks very gloomy.

[Mr.Reak]

I at least think so. I heard a lot, from EA and other publishers throwing words around, that next generation games will costs minimum 20 million dollars. Yes, for a game, bet how many AAA title will cost. So what does it mean for us, as a consumer? $70 priced games, which nobody will buy. It’s ridiculous, but publishers need bigger teams. Game graphics get more and more realistic, which means either publisher will die paying for sizes of big ass teams, rise cost of games, or outsource everything to ****ing Asia. You can say “well I will rent games”, but then again developers themselves get absolutely nothing from it. I really hope Steam-like programs is the future for developers.

I guess consumer is partially to blame, people are so stuck around graphics and gameplay becomes secondary. No, let me say it another way, people don’t buy games that look like last year title, even if gameplay is great (GTA I guess is exclusion, but it got very lucky with that). Yes, maybe we, hardcore gamers do, but average Joe doesn’t. How much money will publisher need to pour into the game to make it look pretty? A lot I say, that means games will be shorter and shorter. We can see it now too I guess, but next generation games will make it even more apparent.

However, the main fear I have is next generation will not innovate. Most of us grew up in an age when game industry was evolving every way possible, creating new genres with every turn. We see it much more less now. Next generation? Good luck, because frankly with such big teams, with so much money, publishers will never try to do anything new. They will spit out same things, as long as people buy it.

I really hope game industry crashers, burn, go down on its knees. I think it’s a way to change how everything works, because we are stuck in the endless spiral and there is point where neither developers or consumers will be happy with the way things are going.

 

[StardogChampion]

I at least think so. I heard a lot, from EA and other publishers throwing words around, that next generation games will costs minimum 20 million dollars... [snip]

Epic say that creating their next-gen game is only costing them 1.5 times as much.

I read that somewhere yesterday. He also said that companies like EA are only saying that to scare people.

Also, you talk about people not buying games that don't look amazing. What about the DS or PSP. The DS games look the same as N64 games. Darwinia doesn't look anything sepcial, but no doubt it will sell ok. And what about Uplink? That game was just text and a UI.

You say that innovation isn't happening. But what about the DS? It comes with a damn stylus. No doubt the Revolution will bring something new aswell. Nintendo are one of the biggest gaming companies to have ever existed, and they're innovating.

 

[Mr.Reak]

Epic say that creating their next-gen game is only costing them 1.5 times as much.

I read that somewhere yesterday. He also said that companies like EA are only saying that to scare people.

Also, you talk about people not buying games that don't look amazing. What about the DS or PSP. The DS games look the same as N64 games. Darwinia doesn't look anything sepcial, but no doubt it will sell ok. And what about Uplink? That game was just text and a UI.

You say that innovation isn't happening. But what about the DS? It comes with a damn stylus. No doubt the Revolution will bring something new aswell. Nintendo are one of the biggest gaming companies to have ever existed, and they're innovating.

DS and PSP are handlers, of course graphics standards changes completely. It’s a different area entirely.

Nintendo tries to innovate, but look at their financial state. They take a lot of risks, sure, but average gamer always thinks “kiddie games” when they think about Nintendo. Nintendo lost in this generation battle, and while they still preach on about “innovation is a key”, they will probably change directions in the near future, to stay alive. They can’t be last ones in the next generation, too many failed consoles. Sega any one? (Both Saturn and Dreamcast were excellent).

As for Epic, don’t kid yourself. Back in 1990s game development was costing around 200k. 1.5 million, never will happen, as I said, with amazing graphics and complicated physics, with everything being voiced-over and so on, costs will rise and rise, until better solution is found. (Like outsourcing everything).

 

[StardogChampion]

As for Epic, don’t kid yourself. Back in 1990s game development was costing around 200k. 1.5 million, never will happen, as I said, with amazing graphics and complicated physics, with everything being voiced-over and so on, costs will rise and rise, until better solution is found. (Like outsourcing everything).

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7189
Ctrl+F - "Earlier you said that you believe it's only going to cost"

Obviously if companies make their own engines from scratch then costs will be much more.

 

[Mr.Reak]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7189
Ctrl+F - "Earlier you said that you believe it's only going to cost"

Obviously if companies make their own engines from scratch then costs will be much more.

Not everybody will use Epic engine for games? Uh, I still don’t see how this makes any point.
However, here is a good read by veterans of game design I just found.

http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2005/03/burn_the_house_.html

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Even EA have taken steps to cut costs, by moving all their internal projects to the Renderware engine. This means that all their internal development teams are inter-exchangable, cutting development time and costs.

 

[EVIL]

I see companies specializing in fields of gaming soon, game engine dev companies, companies who outsource concept artist , 3d modelers etc, all for gamedev names

see it like this, a companie has an idea and contacts's smaller specialized companies to realize that game idea by lending their people,

Things have to become more specalized and effective now technology is growing, and the making of games is going to cost alot more hours and money.

The bizz is going to change soon, smaller gamedev companies won't survive, the thing that they have to do to survive are specializing themselves in diffrent area's of the field, and outsourcing themselves. megadev corps like EA are ruling the gamedevindustry and will give $ to the smaller specialized corps for lending their artist's programmers, engines etc, nothing will be done inhouse anymore, everything will be outsourced.

thats how I see the future, unfortionatly ... I guess soon you won't be able to take the valve route and spend 5 years on your game. things have to be done fast because corps like EA demand it.

 

[VirusType2]

cg movies

Its all about the game engine.

for example:

IF they use id's doom3 engine under license, they already have the framework for a great game.

I don't know how much it costs to use id's engine but I'm sure they make a small portion of every game sale. - but I'm sure they save alot of time and development.

that saves alot of time, then they just put their 3D models in the game and add thier twists.

Also, i think when the NES system was super hot stores were charging up to 70$ for NES games- it was rape. I didn't buy! and that was 8-bit graphics. so if no one buys, they cant charge that much. 50$ is plenty to charge- too much if you ask me.

Besides alot of that money is spent making all the CG movies in games.

Personally, I couldn't care less if they removed them, or used live actors to save money-

CG movies do not really help a game and can cost alot for them. so i say this is were they change needs to be.

One more thing. Video games are alot more popular and widespread then they were - so that means more people will be buying the systems, and more people will be buying thier game.

Also the graphics are getting to a point where anyone can be amazed and begin to start liking video games.- even those who may have never cared for them I should think

 

[EVIL]

Its all about the game engine.

for example:

IF they use id's doom3 engine under license, they already have the framework for a great game.

I don't know how much it costs to use id's engine but I'm sure they make a small portion of every game sale. - but I'm sure they save alot of time and development.

that saves alot of time, then they just put their 3D models in the game and add thier twists.

Also, i think when the NES system was super hot stores were charging up to 70$ for NES games- it was rape. I didn't buy! and that was 8-bit graphics. so if no one buys, they cant charge that much. 50$ is plenty to charge- too much if you ask me.

Besides alot of that money is spent making all the CG movies in games.

Personally, I couldn't care less if they removed them, or used live actors to save money-

CG movies do not really help a game and can cost alot for them. so i say this is were they change needs to be.

One more thing. Video games are alot more popular and widespread then they were - so that means more people will be buying the systems, and more people will be buying thier game.

Also the graphics are getting to a point where anyone can be amazed and begin to start liking video games.- even those who may have never cared for them I should think

about the cg movies, in the future, 2/3 yars from now you wont have cg movies, it will all be realtime, because ingame graphics match that quality. so you wont waste your resources because you alread build the high res models that you normally use for your cg movie in your game

 

[Vegeta897]

Valve is the company that will be shining if what you say happens.

 

[Foxtrot]

I at least think so. I heard a lot, from EA and other publishers throwing words around, that next generation games will costs minimum 20 million dollars. Yes, for a game, bet how many AAA title will cost. So what does it mean for us, as a consumer? $70 priced games, which nobody will buy. It’s ridiculous, but publishers need bigger teams. Game graphics get more and more realistic, which means either publisher will die paying for sizes of big ass teams, rise cost of games, or outsource everything to ****ing Asia. You can say “well I will rent games”, but then again developers themselves get absolutely nothing from it. I really hope Steam-like programs is the future for developers.

I guess consumer is partially to blame, people are so stuck around graphics and gameplay becomes secondary. No, let me say it another way, people don’t buy games that look like last year title, even if gameplay is great (GTA I guess is exclusion, but it got very lucky with that). Yes, maybe we, hardcore gamers do, but average Joe doesn’t. How much money will publisher need to pour into the game to make it look pretty? A lot I say, that means games will be shorter and shorter. We can see it now too I guess, but next generation games will make it even more apparent.

However, the main fear I have is next generation will not innovate. Most of us grew up in an age when game industry was evolving every way possible, creating new genres with every turn. We see it much more less now. Next generation? Good luck, because frankly with such big teams, with so much money, publishers will never try to do anything new. They will spit out same things, as long as people buy it.

I really hope game industry crashers, burn, go down on its knees. I think it’s a way to change how everything works, because we are stuck in the endless spiral and there is point where neither developers or consumers will be happy with the way things are going.

If all this happens then can't game developers just stick to older engines and make game cheaper and put more money into gameplay, not everyone is obsessed with graphics, and when it comes down to money I think the choice won't be too hard(although I think $70 for a game is reasonable as long as I play it long enough and it isn't just a graphics demo).

 

[EVIL]

If all this happens then can't game developers just stick to older engines and make game cheaper and put more money into gameplay, not everyone is obsessed with graphics, and when it comes down to money I think the choice won't be too hard(although I think $70 for a game is reasonable as long as I play it long enough and it isn't just a graphics demo).

lol, stop fooling yourself, "it isnt all about graphics" LOL, if you want to sell a game, you have to make it look good, the mainstream gamers hardly care if they have the oppertunity to play a brilliant game but with sucky HL1 graphics, they refuse to buy it, but if the gameplay is crap but the game looks stunning (doom3) then loads of people will buy it.

Its nice of you to come over as a gameplay patriot, but you will loose, face it man, its all about the graphics. You can't make a popular game if you don't have good graphics. and you cant even come back saying, well, dont make games for the popular market, dont be commercial, not being commercial in the game industry is suicide, your company wont survive

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I at least think so. I heard a lot, from EA and other publishers throwing words around, that next generation games will costs minimum 20 million dollars. Yes, for a game, bet how many AAA title will cost. So what does it mean for us, as a consumer? $70 priced games, which nobody will buy. It’s ridiculous, but publishers need bigger teams. Game graphics get more and more realistic, which means either publisher will die paying for sizes of big ass teams, rise cost of games, or outsource everything to ****ing Asia. You can say “well I will rent games”, but then again developers themselves get absolutely nothing from it. I really hope Steam-like programs is the future for developers.

I guess consumer is partially to blame, people are so stuck around graphics and gameplay becomes secondary. No, let me say it another way, people don’t buy games that look like last year title, even if gameplay is great (GTA I guess is exclusion, but it got very lucky with that). Yes, maybe we, hardcore gamers do, but average Joe doesn’t. How much money will publisher need to pour into the game to make it look pretty? A lot I say, that means games will be shorter and shorter. We can see it now too I guess, but next generation games will make it even more apparent.

However, the main fear I have is next generation will not innovate. Most of us grew up in an age when game industry was evolving every way possible, creating new genres with every turn. We see it much more less now. Next generation? Good luck, because frankly with such big teams, with so much money, publishers will never try to do anything new. They will spit out same things, as long as people buy it.

I really hope game industry crashers, burn, go down on its knees. I think it’s a way to change how everything works, because we are stuck in the endless spiral and there is point where neither developers or consumers will be happy with the way things are going.

You make excellent points. A lot of the things you say are precisly why I say that the ball is in Nintendo's court with the Revolution....powerful yet innovative. Sony and Microsoft have shown their cards....now let one of the industries last innovators show you what they have left in the tank. My hopes are that Nintendo forces the competition to think a little bit more and puts them on the spot. So far it's been all talk with Nintendo....we can only wait for E3 when they have their opportunity.