Support NeoGAF

[Fudgepuppy]

I'm carefully interested in the next-gen, as I want to be a developer in the future, but don't see where it's going at the moment.

It seems that because of the insane rise in game-budgets from this current generation, the industry just got way ahead of itself.

Games got shorter, they got less creative, they got less risky and overall less awe-inspiring on an emotional level.

This is not a case for all games, as other fantastic games grew out of this new market that had a demand for games not being of this AAA-dumbed down caliber, but still.

As the next-generation closes in, some say this is the final push that will determine what gaming shapes into, much in the same way movies aren't anymore only made for the big-screen on 33mm film. Some say that with more power we can create more things without having to spend insane amounts of money, negating the inflation of budgets, while some say that it's worth it in the end if all games look like the Killzone 2 target-render.

I don't know, will this rift become even larger with AAA-games getting even shorter, less interactive and even more expensive (DLC, online-passes etc, micro-transactions) while every other game is an indie-game made for the PC-market?

I don't like the medium as a whole becoming less diverse because it evolved too quickly, eventually collapsing on itself.

So, what will happen?

 

[guek]

Are current budgets insane?

If yes, then no.

If no, then yes.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Appreciable leaps of graphics will be possible without breaking the bank.

But the bank will be broken, regardless, because the minimum acceptable quality for graphics (and all the other things) will be raised by companies with tons of money to spend so that all other publishers will be forced to spend to keep up.

You're also probably going to see more freemium-like mechanics in your $60 games to compensate.

 

[Zombie James]

Plenty of small budget games looks great this generation, I don't see why next-gen would be any different. Isn't that procedural survival horror game from Zombie running on UE4 going to cost $20?

 

[i-Lo]

Today, assets are created at far higher fidelity (in Z brush) and then is downgraded. That takes time. Besides that, as we shift toward a completely real time lighting system (perhaps by next to next gen), the lack of baking would mean further reduction in dev time.

The ideal way to create games is much like real life where the infrastructure of world, its basic building blocks are available for tweaking at finger tips and the rest of consequences or repercussion are mathematically calculated. It will take time, but the greater the processing power, the lesser stress it should put on optimization which adds cost.

 

[lefantome]

yes on smaller games using next gen engines and middleware.

or

on big AAA games with a smooth development and good resources management


it's not something new.

 

[velociraptor]

There are very simple ways to drastically improve the graphics of a game.

1. 1080p
2. AA and AF
3. Locked framerates
4. Improved lighting/shadowing/tesselation/post-processing/fancy effects etc

I imagine it is texture and modelling work which requires more time and effort.

 

[Hero of Legend]

Yeah Shin'en can squeeze out crazy stuff with their tiny team and obviously with a small budget, see Nano Assault Neo on Wii U eShop.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Plenty of small budget games looks great this generation, I don't see why next-gen would be any different. Isn't that procedural survival horror game from Zombie running on UE4 going to cost $20?

This is what I was thinking. Amnesia was made by what, 15 people? And it had to sell something like 15000 copies á 20$ to break even.

So what gives? Some say that Metro and Hard Reset are examples of studios being able to do amazing things as long as they are well managed, but I haven't heard any numbers that would prove this.

 

[Manmademan]

I'm carefully interested in the next-gen, as I want to be a developer in the future, but don't see where it's going at the moment.

It seems that because of the insane rise in game-budgets from this current generation, the industry just got way ahead of itself.

Games got shorter, they got less creative, they got less risky and overall less awe-inspiring on an emotional level.

This is not a case for all games, as other fantastic games grew out of this new market that had a demand for games not being of this AAA-dumbed down caliber, but still.

As the next-generation closes in, some say this is the final push that will determine what gaming shapes into, much in the same way movies aren't anymore only made for the big-screen on 33mm film. Some say that with more power we can create more things without having to spend insane amounts of money, negating the inflation of budgets, while some say that it's worth it in the end if all games look like the Killzone 2 target-render.

I don't know, will this rift become even larger with AAA-games getting even shorter, less interactive and even more expensive (DLC, online-passes etc, micro-transactions) while every other game is an indie-game made for the PC-market?

I don't like the medium as a whole becoming less diverse because it evolved too quickly, eventually collapsing on itself.

So, what will happen?

Shorter? no. there are still plenty of long ass 100 hour games. this is really only appropriate for a small number of RPGs though. most games don't need anywhere near this for a single playthrough.

less creative? indie games and small budget games have exploded compared to last gen.

can't help you with "less awe inspiring." that sounds like a personal problem. nothing is going to be as impressive as the first time you saw it when you were 12.

 

[Mastperf]

Penty of Live Arcade and PSN titles look great despite their lower budget and price.

 

[dsk1210]

I think that when you look at what has came out on the pc, higher framerates and higher resolutions, if the next gen consoles go for similar results the cost should not be anymore.

I do believe that costs could actually be cut with how well prepared some of the new engines are for next gen, I hope that style and gameplay mechanics take precedent over pushing as many polygons as possible.

 

[Nimajneb]

Major "AAA" games will only get more expensive as they strive to make the shiniest graphics to outdo other huge blockbuster games. But smaller teams and indie developers will be able to deliver better graphics with the newer hardware and better tools, without their budget exploding.

 

[liquidtmd]

Its about budgeting. If a title is deemed a failure if it doesnt sell a five million or such numbers, then seriously developers - you are doing it wrong.

If I owned a business in any other industry bar gaming, budgeted 10million say on creating a product, then blame my target audience for failing to buy said product just 'because' - id be culpable. But apparently in gaming its the gamers, the unquantifiable 'AAA' factor, the economy, the tablet market or Obamas fault - never the developers who got their sums or process wrong.

Oh and GAF. You know. Cos we hate nice things and discriminate against hair colour. You can have an AAA experience without a required blockbuster budget - the same as in other mediums like tv and film. Its like saying you can only have a good time in the cinema if youre watching a Michael Bay budgeted romp.

 

[polyh3dron]

Nope, turning up the resolution, AA and framerate automatically makes the budget 3x bigger.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Shorter? no. there are still plenty of long ass 100 hour games. this is really only appropriate for a small number of RPGs though. most games don't need anywhere near this for a single playthrough.

This I don't get. You get some games that have hundreds of hours of content, and yet the average FPS today is like 6 hours, with some being on the shorter end of ~5 hours. Is it just a matter of pacing, less intriguing gameplay or cheaper production? I wouldn't have mind Halo 4 being 15 hours long...

less creative? indie games and small budget games have exploded compared to last gen.

Yes, but now I'm talking about the average game you see on the shelf of any traditional store; the games that do push graphics etc etc.

I'm definitely acknowledging the versatility and creativity of the indie/small-budget market, but for every Hard Reset etc. the games that do stand out in the indie-market are the Hotline Miami's, Minecraft's, Terraria's, Amnesia's etc etc. and I find that kind of sad, as you could last generation see an AAA-game next to an AA-game, and it wasn't a "problem"; those games still sold well.

can't help you with "less awe inspiring." that sounds like a personal problem. nothing is going to be as impressive as the first time you saw it when you were 12.

Sure I'm still dropping my jaw from time to time, but there are so many moments in the bigger and more grandiose games that just fall apart because of their budgets, that the future is scaring me from being excited.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

Its definitely possible. Lighting will improve a lot next gen, and good lighting alone can improve IQ a lot.

 

[prag16]

Are current budgets insane?

If yes, then no.

If no, then yes.

First reply nails it.

 

[Manmademan]

Its about budgeting. If a title is deemed a failure if it doesnt sell a five million or such numbers, then seriously developers - you are doing it wrong.

If I owned a business in any other industry bar gaming, budgeted 10million on creating a product, then blame my target audience for failing to buy said product just 'because - id be culpable. But apparently in gaming its the gamers, the unquantifiable 'AAA' factor, the economy, the tablet market or Obamas fault - never the developers who got their sums or process wrong.

Oh and GAF. You know. Cos we hate nice things and discriminate against hair colour. You can have an AAA experience without a required blockbuster budget - the same in other mediums like tv and film. Its like saying you can only have a good time in the cinema if youre watching a Michael Bay budgeted romp.

exactly this. Demon's souls was projected to sell-and be profitable at- 75,000 copies stateside.

not 750,000. 75,000. It ended up being a wild success selling triple that.

It's not the prettiest game on the planet, but it's good looking, it's challenging, it's creative, and it spawned a great sequel and some imitators. The assertion that everything must sell 3 million copies and have a 100 million marketing budget to be successful is simply false. There's a lot of room for smart studios and good games.

 

[Pineconn]

If yes, then no.

If no, then yes.

 

[Gustav]

Yes, with better middleware and standardized pipelines cost reduction should be possible.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Can they? Sure. Will they? Probably not. Considering it'll take time and careful planning to keep costs down, and most big games aren't created with time OR care in planning taken into account, what's going to likely happen is big developers with deep pockets will simply pay to essentially brute-force beauty into their games, while indie devs will be forced to figure out how best to finesse a quality solution into theirs.

 

[airmangataosenai]

People: Upping resolution and texture quality doesn't cause an explosion in cost. Game dev costs shooting up this generation were exaggerated pretty heavily, and even then that mainly came from higher expectations in production values. Production values next gen aren't likely to be far superior to what we see now.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Nope, turning up the resolution, AA and framerate automatically makes the budget 3x bigger.

Budgets are already huge and need to get deflated or better managed. No, having more power to use standards in the PC-market wont make the budgets higher, but they wont make the games cheaper either.

I would really like to see next-gen tools that allow the developers - no matter their job in the team - to create rough outlines on the fly of an entire map, or character-model or any other kind of asset for that matter. Basically tools that allow things to be created at the speed they are conceived at. That would definitely shrink budgets.

 

[disco]

Not at all. The future looks like a desolate post-war dystopia both literally and physically.

 

[JordanN]

Are people asking for current gen graphics next gen? What happened to Agni's and that UE4 demo and even Avatar (lol)?

It all depends on what level of detail is being targeted. In which case, asking for better graphics will cost more.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

exactly this. Demon's souls was projected to sell-and be profitable at- 75,000 copies stateside.

not 750,000. 75,000. It ended up being a wild success selling triple that..

Wow, I didn't know that, that's awesome!

 

[xam3l]

Doesn't the technology to make visually awesome games like we see in some pre-rendered cut-scenes already exists?

If so, aren't the games only limited by the hardware? Because if it is, the budget for future games can be the same as the actual ones. Right?

 

[velociraptor]

Crysis 1 didn't have a huge budget either yet it is still amongst the best looking games currently out.

 

[Sissel]

Its about budgeting. If a title is deemed a failure if it doesnt sell a five million or such numbers, then seriously developers - you are doing it wrong.

If I owned a business in any other industry bar gaming, budgeted 10million say on creating a product, then blame my target audience for failing to buy said product just 'because' - id be culpable. But apparently in gaming its the gamers, the unquantifiable 'AAA' factor, the economy, the tablet market or Obamas fault - never the developers who got their sums or process wrong.

Oh and GAF. You know. Cos we hate nice things and discriminate against hair colour. You can have an AAA experience without a required blockbuster budget - the same as in other mediums like tv and film. Its like saying you can only have a good time in the cinema if youre watching a Michael Bay budgeted romp.

That comparison doesn't really work. Lower budget films like Drive look as good as higher budget films like transformers. Games aren't there yet, where the low budget games look as good as the high budget games.

 

[Insane Metal]

I believe so.

On this current gen games got a lot more expensive to make because there was a complete revolution in gaming development, higher resolution, multi-threaded cpus, multiplatforms that had to be completely re-written to run in different platforms (PS3 x 360), all that accounted for a much higher development cost.

Next gen will probably not suffer from this, since Durango and Orbis both use x86 cpus with 8 cores, high resolution is already a reality... all this will make development much easier cheaper/easier imo.

 

[VariantX]

They'll cost more because new consoles mean you can do more. It's not just about about turning up a few knobs to 1080p, they'll soon expect that every room in a city is accessible, with everything in that room capable of some interaction with the player. It'll start out similar to budgets we have now, until one dev/pub raises the standard which forces every other game to meet that standard or their games get docked points in reviews.

 

[Pachterballs]

I don't really think next gen games will cost much more then this gen. You can do more with less. A good engine like UE4+Cry3 will do loads for you. The models are already high poly count anyhow (and rendered to generate normal maps which are applied to less dense meshes).

agree with insane metal more of less.

 

[sd28821]

Appreciable leaps of graphics will be possible without breaking the bank.

But the bank will be broken, regardless, because the minimum acceptable quality for graphics (and all the other things) will be raised by companies with tons of money to spend so that all other publishers will be forced to spend to keep up.

You're also probably going to see more freemium-like mechanics in your $60 games to compensate.

damn you beat me too it

 

[injurai]

Crysis 1 didn't have a huge budget either yet it is still amongst the best looking games currently out.

This is possible because you have a team that is working hard to make sure they will still have a job, and are working specifically on the bleeding edge. As soon as you start making games for the masses and hire in people who feel comfortable with the new found stability of a studio then achieving the same thing starts to require a creeping budget. Especially initial investments are gone and you become dependent on marketing and increased profits to stay afloat.

 

[Gustav]

Crysis 1 didn't have a huge budget either yet it is still amongst the best looking games currently out.

That's because it was made in Germany. The salaries for game devs are laughable over here.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

Someone mentioned middleware, and I agree with that, next gen is going to be a gold-mine for middleware.

This generation we had stuff like Havok for physics and Speedtree for, well, trees.

I figure that while UE3 and CryEngine3 is going to cover a lot of ground, there's plenty of room for specialized content-creation middleware.

Think, Speedhair, Speedskin, Speedliquids, Speedflame etc.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Most things were costly this gen because of the HD transition. Now that we finally transitioned into HD and rendering has gotten easier, faster, and cheaper I see no reason why budgets would go up. Unless of course you have big bucks to spend. I expect AAA games to be blockbusters, but the small companies will always manage to make due.

 

[ksamedi]

There will surely be budget increases, that is a given. What I'm more worried about is how publishers will manage these huge amazingly complex software projects. I think we will see a lot of failed development projects next gen.

 

[woober]

Witcher 2 had a budget of 8 million if I recall correctly. And it looked pretty amazing. Some screenshots I pulled from the PC screenshot thread:

 

[Ravidrath]

The cost increase this gen shouldn't be as bad as it was last time, but there will probably be further increases.

More graphical power means more detail, which means more objects.

There will surely be budget increases, that is a given. What I'm more worried about is how publishers will manage these huge amazingly complex software projects. I think we will see a lot of failed development projects next gen.

Anyone who can launch a AAA game now should be able to do mostly the same thing next gen, I think.

 

[Gustav]

Witcher 2 had a budget of 8 million if I recall correctly. And it looked pretty amazing. Some screenshots I pulled from the PC screenshot thread:

http://www.abload.de/img/witcher22012-01-0118-7ckl9.png[/MG]

[IMG]http://i3.minus.com/ibt4VNzNIQRUVh.jpg[/MG][/QUOTE]

Made in Poland. No wonder.

 

[dragonelite]

Didn't EA,Ubisoft and then some already said they dont expect massive rise of budget for game development.

Next gen graphics will come because the graphics engineering will probably push it anyway.
We are giving them now buckets full of water instead of them squeezing water droplets out of stone.
The game developers probably already have their tool and art pipeline up to snuff and probably wont change. Multicore and parallel programming is not new like it was this gen.

We are also using motion capture and hiring voice actors already. So i dont see a lot of rising cost here unless studios are stupid and cast them for flavor of the month actor asking a high price.

 

[Mxrz]

Whether you like it or not, this is absolutely been the most diverse time in gaming's history, even at the AAA stage (Which is a bit silly since one could argue that distinction didn't even exist until this gen) We have this rant every couple of weeks, and just isn't the case. The variety is there. If you only play certain EA, Activision, and Ubi games - Well, that is your fault. In 25-26 years, I've never had this many options available when deciding what to buy or what to play.

Couldn't disgaree more about games being less creative, innovative, risky or awe-inspiring either. I'm not going into list wars, but I'd argue we have multiple big games that accomplished all of that on their own.

 

[Loofy]

Physics based animation alone will make alot of games look next gen.

 

[RoboPlato]

The budget increases for AAA titles will happen but won't be nearly as insane as the jump from last gen to this gen. Next gen systems seem like they're much easier to develop for and devs are used to producing HD games at this point. The move to real time lighting and heavy use of tesselation will also help speed up development time and keep budgets in line since you don't need to waste hours baking lighting or molding polygons.

I think the gap in AAA visuals versus lower budget games will be smaller. It won't be the increase in visuals that raises budgets, it'll be things likes EA, Ubi, and Capcom throwing 600 people at a game to get it made. I can see the AAA bubble bursting but more focused, lower budgeted titles will be fine.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=512257

Made by 6 people.

 

[ksamedi]

The cost increase this gen shouldn't be as bad as it was last time, but there will probably be further increases.

More graphical power means more detail, which means more objects.




Anyone who can launch a AAA game now should be able to do mostly the same thing next gen, I think.

I don't think its that simple. Bigger software projects raise complexity. If the complexity levels are very high there is a higher chance that projects fall apart. For example, GTAV took 5 years of development and I am wondering if they even will be able to make a next gen version. Some publishers will figure it out for sure, but its going to be a very hard environment to compete in. Very risky indeed.

 

[Scum]

Appreciable leaps of graphics will be possible without breaking the bank.

But the bank will be broken, regardless, because the minimum acceptable quality for graphics (and all the other things) will be raised by companies with tons of money to spend so that all other publishers will be forced to spend to keep up.

You're also probably going to see more freemium-like mechanics in your $60 games to compensate.

.

 

[aegies]

The two things that add the most to game budgets are the things that require the most time. For graphics, that's statically lighting scenes for pre-baking over and over. For development, that's finding a way to achieve specific design parameters under slowly shrinking resource overhead. Some of the games late this gen with the longest development cycles required much of that time to script and rig levels and AI to provide a specific series of experiences.

More power isn't just good for graphics. The giant leaps in memory and processor power in the next gen consoles make design less of a death march. The less time it takes to make things happen during development, the cheaper games are to make.