Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

I see a three levels pricing scheme for next-generation games, at least I do think this will be true especially for post-launch titles (close to next-generation's 2nd generation titles).

I have heard several developers expecting polygon count raising at least 10x from current games and they guys at Epic expects for outdoors levels to have up to ~100 Million polygons in the level and Unreal Engine 3 is targeting the next-generation of consoles as well as advanced Desktop PC GPUs that will launch in that period (late 2005 and early 2006).

Those levels do not create themselves, they require more and more man-power, more and more man-hours which do cost you a pretty penny.

There is only so much that COLLADA, OpenMAX, OpenGL ES, XNA, etc... can do to reduce development costs: content creation costs are going to sky-rocket next-generation IMHO.

Prices will go up: they need to.

Gamers will want, will demand games that are more and more graphically advanced, that push the next-generation consoles.

Say that Xbox 2 can create the visuals of Toy Story 2 in real-time.

Do you think a nice game can be made with that kind of visual quality and varied content and sold at a profit with a $49.99 MSRP ?

This was just an example, an exageratred example just to convey the point.

We might see less AAA titles that show ultra-advanced graphics next-generation during each year, but as you can see from 2004... people whined in 2003 for the not-abundance of major releases and due to the over-abundance of said games people are saying "too much, move 'em to 2005".

I think that a MSRP of $59.99 will be used for most of all the big-hitters next-generation (maybe not for the launch titles, but again I cannot exclude it).

We used to pay more than that in the 16 bits days.

I see prices for AAA titles being lower than that if companies cut the middle man somehow and allow users to buy and download the game directly from the publisher's house (through Microsoft LIVE or Sony's network).

There are good news though.

Thanks to the good work that all three console manufacturers are doing aimed at reducing development costs in terms of programming-time and development-learnign curve for the machine.

Setting things up, sharing data with various content creation tools, using middlewares for A.I., Physics, etc... will be easier.

On a slightly similar note, you will see games with MSRP hovering around $39.99-49.99 during next-generation and I am not only talking about Mary Kate & Ashley do Dallas (do as in... drive in the city... ahem... [eat a burger you two]) kind of titles either.

Creating ultra-detailed content is hard and expensive, but also creating very cool looking things with very harsh requirements/restrictions is.

Do you think that Polyphony would spend more money if their artists would not have to fit in less than 6,000 polygons per car (4,000-5,000 for several cars) all the detail they try to fit ?

I am sure a lot of people here on GA could create pretty nice looking character models (models you would actually want in a game ) without taking 3 years, but you would look at the polygon-counts (in not too few of them) and it would be something quite high.

Same goes with lighting: if you can afford to have several spot, directional, omni lights in your game at good frame-rates you might be able to reduce the time you spend lighting the levels.

Sure, this is what some call the lazy path.

The one that would lead games on current consoles to slide-show like frame-rates with not even any more impresive looking scenes than those games which achieve 30-60 fps.

What can the next-generation of console do to help developers (especially smaller groups or groups without a giant budget... say small team published by EA, but not given a high budget) ?

Well, we could see those slide-show games running now at 30-60 fps with graphics probably prettier than most of current-generation titles just because of the better Image Quality they will be able to afford (higher AA and better Texture Filtering).

Those games will probably cost less to make than today's top-games in terms of programming resources and optimization of the content (which does rise content creation costs).

Those are the games I see with a MSRP with $39.99 while for an MSRP of $49.99 I see titles that sit in between the two generations.

Most of those $49.99 titles would be based on similar ideas to the $39.99 titles: basically evolved current-generation titles in terms of technology, but with more time and money spent developing story, gameplay, art, etc...

At $49.99 you will basically see two category of games IMHO:

1.) titles that will feel like shorter, smaller and a bit rushed efforts, but with next-generation graphics or close to...

2.) titles that will feellike great current-generation++ games.

 

[Mason]

I don't follow your logic. From what I understand, to use your polygon example, artists already make the models with extremely high poly counts and then the engine renders them as best it can. The next-gen engines will do the same thing, they'll just won't have to scale them back as much. No extra work will be required.

And even if overall more work is required to add that extra level of detail we get with more powerful hardware, I don't see why prices would go up. As you pointed out, we used to pay more for games than we do now. Why would prices go down and then back up?

 

[AniHawk]

I wonder if Sony will try keeping their first party titles at a low price next gen. Jak and Ratchet have sold very well at $39.99, wouldn't making them $49.99 or $59.99 hurt them in the future?

Not talking about Jak and Ratchet specifically, but using as an example for whatever comes to replace them.

 

[BeOnEdge]

prices will not go up. i'd say developers will be more inclined to not make shitty games more than anything and stay safe with their decisions. it wont take more manpower to do anything. look at the PC sector. High end PCs destroy consoles. PC games arent 59.99. hell PC games dont even stay full price for a month.

I say in the begining of next gen you will see MORE games priced at full price and the prices will stay there LONGER just like the beginning of this gen. it took FOREVER for the price of say fantavision and Ridge Racer 5 to drop. Smaller dev houses with less intense games may see 39.99 price points and budget titles will come mid gen. Any extra money will be made on premium content. a thing MS has been testing THIS gen. $50 for the game and $5 extras here and there.

 

[scarybore]

Prices should be falling not rising, publishers need stop shafting developers and should stop funding future games by releasing crap and then hoping a big seller is in the pipeline, ready to make back the losses made, at inflated prices. If prices where cheaper we would be more likely to spend money on games we normally wouldnt buy spreading our money out between developers better. The industry needs proper reform imo.

If anything im hoping that with the price of developing games rising that developers will be alot more intelligent and cautious when it comes to designing their games, releasing fewer straight to bargain bin eforts and concentrating on making the best game they can without outside pressures.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I know I don't want or care for graphical upgrades, but I'm in a fucking small minority.

 

[Goreomedy]

If prices go up, I'll just be more inclined to buy DVDs or CDs instead.

 

[btrboyev]

Yeah, prices will not go up..unless the industry wants to go the early 80's way.

I just don't understand the logic your using....even if game developmet prices go up, they aren't gonna go up very much to what they currently are. If anything the higher end capabilties is gonna make game development that much easier assuming devs are getting nice tools from the console makers. Instead of using lots of resources getting those car models look just right without sacrificing details and framerate, the devlopers are gonna be able to use much more of their time on new gameplay additions without having to worry about the graphics end as much as they are today.

 

[Littleberu]

I don't follow your logic. From what I understand, to use your polygon example, artists already make the models with extremely high poly counts and then the engine renders them as best it can. The next-gen engines will do the same thing, they'll just won't have to scale them back as much. No extra work will be required.

Huh no. The artist makes a low poly version of the model. That's it.

 

[BeOnEdge]

stuff like XNA and renderware will also help curb costs. I just hope next gens version of renderware allows for more to be done with games. i mean i guess its all up to the dev considering the difference in gfx between burnout, GTA and sonic heroes.

 

[JJConrad]

It won't happen. It didn't happen this generation. We saw similar jumps in hardware power and development time from last gen to this gen, as are expected for this gen to next. Average game prices are about the same now as they were 5 years ago.

Low-buget and quick, cash-in games will still exsist. Those games will drive down the prices of the rest of the games. People just will not pay that much as long as an alternative exsist. Even if all 3 consoles do cost more, people will just buy less games.

What will happen, though, is that at the start of the next-gen prices will reset. You might see some companies experiment with a $60 price tag in the beginning (especially if the XB2 launches a year before the other 2 consoles), but it won't last long.

Too much competition.

 

[SKluck]

This is an incredibly stupid premise.

Games were expensive back in the 80s/early 90s, even with the N64, and the work they required in terms of graphics wasn't nearly as heavy as it is or will be.

Yet prices went DOWN, and you expect them to go up again? The only discernable pattern is that games, by the large, go down in price.

"Huh no. The artist makes a low poly version of the model. That's it."

Um, well the whole point of polybump and normal mapping is that you create a super high poly model and extract a bump map from it and apply that to a low poly model. Tons of games do and will do that.

 

[snapty00]

I could see many -- but definitely not at all -- games rising to maybe $60 in the next five years but NOT for the reasons you listed. My reasoning would be simple inflationary reasons. Games have been $50 as a standard for a while (about seven years now), and I think if publishers want to continue making the same profits per game that they have in the past, they'll have to raise prices about $10 merely to ward off inflation. But after that, I don't think we'll see another significant price hike for another 7 to 10 years.

 

[Dave Long]

If prices go up, more people will simply wait for games to get cheap. We've already got a whole subculture that follows the advertisements and markdowns with religious fervor. Start charging $59.99 a game and that group is going to become even more influential.

In short, prices will not go up. If anything, they're going to come down. And we still might be headed for a crash anyway IMO. There's a glut of product.

 

[ImNotLikeThem]

so then why is Doom 3 $54.99? Just because they can?

 

[shuri]

What is this? THey do the same projections for every generation

 

[MetatronM]

so then why is Doom 3 $54.99? Just because they can?

Yes.

 

[TekunoRobby]

If prices go up, I'll just be more inclined to buy DVDs or CDs instead.

You see that? Goreomedy has just uttered what 90% of the consumer base would say if prices did indeed rise by a factor of $10.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Actually, the industry is going to continue along the same lines as this generation. And it isn't for the better.

With higher capital input, there comes higher risk. As it is, most large companies won't even think of greenlighting an innovative new game that doesn't have a license, previous franchise, or publish a "niche" style game. If it isn't a "safe bet" most pubs will kill it before it hits conception.

As production costs rise, things are going to get worse in terms of creativity and supposed "risk-taking". We're going to see less of Katamari Damacy, Alien Hominid if things keep up as it is.

I realise that not all companies will take this route but I have a bad feeling about the industry if things don't change soon...

 

[NotMSRP]

I'll still hold true to my name.

 

[GIR]

Those levels do not create themselves, they require more and more man-power, more and more man-hours which do cost you a pretty penny.

WTF are you saying? Are you saying that a 12,000 polygon model requires more MAN-POWER to make than a say 4,000 polygon model? Nah. I'd be thinking it’s the other way around a low poly model would take more effort to look good than a higher poly model which is what we can expect from the next crap generation of crap video game consoles, developers wont have to worry (as much) about poly counts they'll just make the damn models, and who knows they might even save enough time to be able to put more effort into the gameplay which is what really counts.

Seriously by your logic my ticket to see Toy Story and Finding Elmo (or was it Nemo, what a cute fishy) should have cost $200, hey but WTF would I know, I'm just some guy, I'm no developer that’s for sure

 

[IJoel]

I think it will happen but not in the way you describe.

I think developers will beef up content on games and sell Special Editions much more often and sell those for a $5 or $10 more than the regular priced games. I also see more games launching at $39.99, plus the usual budget games.

Breakdown:
1. Limited/Special Editions = $54.99 or $59.99
2. Regular Full Priced Editions = $49.99
3. Not Quite Budget Priced Games = $39.99
4. Budget Games = $19.99 or $29.99

Right now it is happening but not nearly as much as I think it will in the future.

 

[FitzOfRage]

Seriously by your logic my ticket to see Toy Story and Finding Elmo (or was it Nemo, what a cute fishy) should have cost $200, hey but WTF would I know, I'm just some guy, I'm no developer that’s for sure

Well the movie did cost $140 million to produce and market. One reason you're not paying $200 for a ticket is because they sold like tens of millions of tickets worldwide.

And by your logic, costs should have been falling since the PSX/N64, instead of skyrocketing the way they have.

 

[buck naked]

It's not the polygon counts or the special effects (shaders, etc) that are expensive, it's the audio and texture work.

As development tools improve, aspects like AI, animation, lighting and physics get easier and faster to develop (like you said, with middleware), but it's the creative aspects that I'm worried about.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I will buy less games, more pirate software, and other forms of entertainment if prices go up. I imagine that could be a trend for many.

 

[Grubdog]

I know I don't want or care for graphical upgrades, but I'm in a fucking small minority.

Me too, it's madness.

 

[FightyF]

I don't follow your logic. From what I understand, to use your polygon example, artists already make the models with extremely high poly counts and then the engine renders them as best it can. The next-gen engines will do the same thing, they'll just won't have to scale them back as much. No extra work will be required.

I understand this point (and it's been reiterated throughout this thread), and I agree with this specific example.

But there are other examples where costs will increase.

-Animations: For sports games, you can't have enough. Doing more mocap will take more money and time. Hopefully this next gen developers will find ways for the characters to animate themselves after learning some behaviour, but AFAIK there isn't even academic research on that kind of technology at the moment.

-Texture art: More power may mean more content, which means more textures.

-More to model: Compare a game like Driver on the PSOne, to GTA3. GTA3 has more lush environments as it has more objects. Of course these had to be modelled by modellers, and so if we are going to see the same increase in objects, we are going to see more work. Personally though, games like PGR2, GTA3, The Getaway, etc. have nailed down a lot of the extra detail you see in cities, so if there is more, there isn't much more. This same example also applies to game audio. There are more sound effects, more ambient sounds...and this takes time to create.

-Research: With the fast CPUs, I expect a lot of new innovative stuff being done in the way of AI, physics, animations, etc. This costs money. Nowadays you have Havoc, and other small companies picking up in this department, and selling their technologies to developers. A few months ago Epic bought some technology that allows player lip syncing (much like in HL2) to be put in their current and new engines. It's a cost and we can't ignore that.

Will game prices go up? I don't know enough about pricing games to say. I do know that developments costs will go up in some areas, and hopefully with middleware and XNA, costs will go down in other areas, balancing everything out. Development tools are a wonderful thing and do save time and money, as well as increase the quality of your product. MS has the right idea and plans to address this issue head-on with a solution, and so I am inclined to say that game costs will remain the same for the most part. Ambitious titles will cost a lot (as always), but besides that, I think it will stay the same.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I understand how they could go up. But does every game have to ooze visual flair and weigh in at $40+? They could encourage people to buy more if they lowered to a more mass marketable price. The average person surely doesn't impulse buy videogames... they might at the right price though.

 

[Jonnyram]

As licenses become more prevalent, there may well be a point in the future where motion capture is done at the time of shooting a movie to save costs, and movie production becomes synergised with game production.

I find the whole idea of the thread quite amusing though. If anything, game prices will have to come down. The costs of development will only be covered if games sell higher numbers, and since they have to compete with DVDs, the price will need to come down to similar levels too. True, in a gamer's mind, the value for money from an 80 hour RPG far exceeds any DVD, but for the casual market, which is where the game market has to end up (let's not kid ourselves), games will become shorter but cheaper.

 

[White Man]

Back for the PS1, wasn't the standard game price 44.99? If I'm recalling correctly, then I'd expect a 5-10 dollar increase during the upcoming gen.

 

[deadhorse32]

I remember the same kind of argument when the PS2 was announced.

"OMG It's TOO powerful only 5 companies in the world can create content for it."
"It's too much work. All the little studios are gonna collapse."
"Games are gonna be expensive to make and prices will go up."

Let's face it. Games are in competition with movie and music, they can't cost 3x the price of a movie.

Prices are gonna be stable or even lower to be more competitive with other medium.

THE END

 

[GIR]

Well the movie did cost $140 million to produce and market. One reason you're not paying $200 for a ticket is because they sold like tens of millions of tickets worldwide.

You obviously haven’t taken into account movies that cost a shitload to make but never make their money back, how about Water World, I payed the same amount for that ticket. Movies that don't make their money back are just like businesses that fail.

And by your logic, costs should have been falling since the PSX/N64, instead of skyrocketing the way they have.

And what logic would that be? I never said anywhere in my post that costs should or would fall, so please don’t put words into my mouth thankyou. Just to make it clear my official line is that costs will stay the same.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

I remember the same kind of argument when the PS2 was announced.

"OMG It's TOO powerful only 5 companies in the world can create content for it."
"It's too much work. All the little studios are gonna collapse."
"Games are gonna be expensive to make and prices will go up."

Let's face it. Games are in competition with movie and music, they can't cost 3x the price of a movie.

Prices are gonna be stable or even lower to be more competitive with other medium.

THE END

This man speaks the truth.

And leave it to the only guy on a gaming message board who doesn't actually play video games to say that higher prices are a good thing.

 

[ElyrionX]

I thought the original post was kind of ridiculous because it never did account for one of the biggest factor that would offset higher production costs: the inevitable increase in sales volume fuelled by the onset of the next-generation consoles and the quantum leap in graphical quality they bring.

Graphically, as videogames become even more impressive, more and more of the mainstream would be inspired and influenced to regard gaming as a valid and entertaining way of spending their time and money. Around here we're all geeks and graphics may not matter as much to us as gameplay. However, with the mainstream crowd (especially the ladies), its almost entirely about the visuals, at least where first impressions are concerned and there is where the next-generation consoles and videogames would lead us to.

 

[kikonawa]

here in belgium (and most other euro lands also) most new releases are already 69.99EURO .. => 86.5 US $

that's high enough thanx

 

[Panajev2001a]

WTF are you saying? Are you saying that a 12,000 polygon model requires more MAN-POWER to make than a say 4,000 polygon model? Nah. I'd be thinking it’s the other way around a low poly model would take more effort to look good than a higher poly model which is what we can expect from the next crap generation of crap video game consoles, developers wont have to worry (as much) about poly counts they'll just make the damn models, and who knows they might even save enough time to be able to put more effort into the gameplay which is what really counts.

Seriously by your logic my ticket to see Toy Story and Finding Elmo (or was it Nemo, what a cute fishy) should have cost $200, hey but WTF would I know, I'm just some guy, I'm no developer that’s for sure

The volumes that betweeen merchandising, ticket sales worldwide and DVD sales, etc... far FAR FAR surpass what video-games sell for.

If we get costs that rival Pixar movies we need to have a similar volume to have what you would call good pricing.

Low polygons model do take effort (you go and say "WTF" then you do not even bother to read the post in its entirety and you look all confused...), but very highly detailed models do take even more effort.

If you think that programming man-hours will be the main cost factor in the following generations compared to artist man-hours, you are wrong IMHO.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I thought the original post was kind of ridiculous because it never did account for one of the biggest factor that would offset higher production costs: the inevitable increase in sales volume fuelled by the onset of the next-generation consoles and the quantum leap in graphical quality they bring.

So my post is ridiculous yet you claim a masive "inevitable" increase in sales volumes without really backing any of it up ?

 

[Panajev2001a]

here in belgium (and most other euro lands also) most new releases are already 69.99EURO .. => 86.5 US $

that's high enough thanx

I was not talking outside the States.

The price in the states might not be high enough in the future: keeping the same MSRP might mean even worse tendency to kill risky projects next-generation.

 

[Scrow]

More expensive games can go rape themselves with a rusty crowbar.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Game prices go up any more, and the industry is fucked. Dev costs are too high as is, and games haven't gotten much better as a result. I hope to see the trend reversed.

 

[GIR]

Low polygons model do take effort (you go and say "WTF" then you do not even bother to read the post in its entirety and you look all confused...), but very highly detailed models do take even more effort.

I read it, and your point that high poly models take more effort that you have just reiterated is wrong IMO.

If you think that programming man-hours will be the main cost factor in the following generations compared to artist man-hours, you are wrong IMHO.

Nope. I never said that, are you taking artistic licence with my post?

 

[doncale]

imagine a huge nextgen Zelda game in 2008 with Soul Calibur 2 CGI intro-quality gameplay graphics. that would be worth $90 at least.

 

[ge-man]

I'm not even worried about prices that much now. Delays are going to be the real kicker unless developers have their act together on creating engines and generating content.

edit:That doesn't mean that I don't think higher prices won't be a real concern. Most of us are real cheap ass gamers--we're willing to pass on certain hardware or wait for months for a game to drop to 20 bucks or less without thinking twice. I thought it was striking reading that TMNT2 thread the other day and seeing how many poster were going to wait until the game hit the baragain bin without considering whether the game is better this time. The industry has to find a way to keep prices in a resonable range or to justify the high price--neither goal is going to be easy but one or the other must be pursued.

 

[sprsk]

fuck higher prices.

 

[Redbeard]

But aren't they already making these high detail models anyway? Take a game like Riddick for example, they have to make the models to generate normal maps from, then make a less detailed model to use ingame. Though I guess you could argue that's why Riddick was so short and lacked multiplayer, which would fall into case #1 you listed.

 

[AniHawk]

imagine a huge nextgen Zelda game in 2008 with Soul Calibur 2 CGI intro-quality gameplay graphics. that would be worth $90 at least.

That's like asking someone in 1998 if they'd pay $90 for a Zelda game with Zelda XII's graphics. Back then, it would be among the best things any gamer would have witnessed. Right now, it's more or less standard.

 

[sprsk]

im sorry no game (new) is worth 90 dollars. 99% of games out today arent worth paying 50 dollars for and its definitely not because of graphics.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

^^
Word!

 

[IgeL]

I'd like to see three big pricepoints - nowadays we basically have budget and full price, and everything else just fits in between. I'd like budget, average and full. Basically all the big players would release their games at full price (i.e. Sony/EA/MS/Nintendo etc), but other publishers could release their game at average pricepoint. Obviously for this kind of pricing to work, customers would need to know about it and not associate the lower pricepoint with a poor product.

Oh well. One can always dream...

But I don't see howwe could sustain higher prices, except for special versions (which are becoming a trend now, and it'll probably stay that way). Indeed, games should be shorter and cheaper imho.

 

[JasoNsider]

"Game prices will go up, but it will be good for us (next-generation) Reply to Thread"

Wait, so what was the part that was good for us again? That our games look pretty? Sorry, but I would rather have no graphical upgrade and games priced the same as a DVD movie than to have the industry head down this road any longer. People don't understand that polygons are not the only thing that are worrisome. A graphically intense world needs details. Who cares if you have 100 million polygon scenes if the waterfall animates like ass and the when you smack the tree, you don't see any wood chips fly off? Without details like these, your 100 million polygon scene would be lifeless.

I would be more than happy just continuing with the current generation of systems for another 6 years if it meant cheaper games and smaller developers getting a chance to catch up.