Go_Ly_Dow
Member
Thanks, not sure if accurate. Might just get a number plucked out of thin air.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lets track the budget of big games and development times
- Thread starter cormack12
- Start date
Thanks, not sure if accurate. Might just get a number plucked out of thin air.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Scalability is the key to this discussion imho.
Lets not forget that the entire AAA phenomenon came about because the preexisting AA (then called B-tier) model was perceived to have failed. Back in the late 90's the idea was basically that the odd breakout success underwrote the losses/break-evens within a raft of product.
So then, shouldn't the question be whether the economics of production have changed over the years such that this older model should be readopted? An answer probably best demonstrated through relative profitability versus production cost at all scales.
My suspicion is that if anything the differential has worsened due to the fact that its comparatively more time consuming and complicated to make any sort of game these days.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Ai is going to be leveraged hard AND we're going to be paying $89 for games.
cormack12
Gold Member
Most issues I've read about that drive up costs seems to be changing decisions or scope creep in games - or rewrites meaning redoing mocaps. I was astonished when reading about the God of War pitch that they had no working combat proof of concept. That alone would have taken a long time to iterate on and get right. Just seems odd that you can pitch on an unknown
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Pretty sure that Spider-Man 2 figure covered all projects. SM2, Wolverine, Venom, SM3, Ratchet and Clank, XMen.
Del_X
Member
That means you have not read the leaks then
bitbydeath
Gold Member
The headcount was for all staff and they have multiple teams working on multiple projects.
Edit: You’ll also notice that marketing isn’t included which typically doubles the cost of a game.
Last edited:
balls of snow
Gold Member
'Only' 80 some odd million for Witcher 3.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
That's true, but making drastic changes during production can be positive for quality despite increasing costs. Sometimes you can try something radical, but discover in the end it simply doesn't work. Also, the truth is that games of any scope or budget can fall prey to this, I mean how often do we hear of indie titles that took 3, 4 or more years to complete.
Which is kinda the crux of my argument: Good games seem to take longer and longer to make no matter the budget. And that's a big problem when the old-style "hit based" model demands product be put out quickly! Publishers cannot fund multiple small projects for years on the hope that the one breakout hit will cover costs.
If you look at it that way, the AAA model of spending big on a "safe" property, and marketing the shit out of it seems like the smart business move!
It gets worse though!
If you follow what I wrote above its pretty apparent that the step beyond AAA, is largely a bunch of unappealing options.
(1) Games continue to get bigger and more expensive to make and to consume. The downsides to this are many and obvious.
(2) MS are proven right that Game Pass is the model of the future with the big titles effectively underwriting a bunch of filler content on the service via buy-out payments or similar. This could be a win for individual devs but leaves the industry at the mercy of the platform operator(s), who controls inclusion and so can editorialize and/or play kingmaker as they wish.
(3) Content is changed or scoped-back to keep budgets in check. This seems superficially the most benign, but I'm generally iffy about economics dictating creative choices. And I don't think people are going to be over the moon about paying the same money for less quality or content going forwards.
I feel like the big mistake people make is thinking that going back 25-30 years in terms of content is going to translate to the same user experience they had in those days. Its impossible to wipe all the changes and advancements made since then from our collective memory. So even if we take a lot of them for granted... we'd miss them were they to be gone.
TransTrender
Gold Member
Hyenas
5 years
$100 million
Didn't even see the light of day
5 years
$100 million
Didn't even see the light of day
HerjansEagleFeeder
Member
Funny thing is, the quality of the work of programmers and artists is practically always criticized by the general public upon release of the titles, regardless of how the project internally went and all the other stuff that happens during development (which is easy, because everyone can see and experience the end result for himself).
These numbers - although superficial and not very meaningful - give an idea of how general management performed, as well as marketing and business management. However, it's apparently pretty hard to come by even the most generalized performance indicators in game development because companies purposefully never disclose any of that. It's almost as if certain people's quality of work isn't supposed to be evaluated and criticized.
Edit: I guess shareholders are satisfied anyways, otherwise they wouldn't invest in these companies in the first place?!
These numbers - although superficial and not very meaningful - give an idea of how general management performed, as well as marketing and business management. However, it's apparently pretty hard to come by even the most generalized performance indicators in game development because companies purposefully never disclose any of that. It's almost as if certain people's quality of work isn't supposed to be evaluated and criticized.
Edit: I guess shareholders are satisfied anyways, otherwise they wouldn't invest in these companies in the first place?!
Last edited:
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
I was thinking today that it would be awesome if developers started making expansion packs/period sequels to beloved games from the past. Like, imagine Mario Galaxy 3, or Halo 3 Part 2. Same graphics and gameplay. It’d be so much cheaper than developing a modern game, and people would eat that shit up.
NeoLed
Member
I found it's hard to believe that BOTW was bigger in content than FF7R. More fun maybe. I don't know, haven't played it. More fun isn't more content tho
FF7R have more characters with their own weapon that sometimes lead to different playstyles. I believe FF7R have more voice acting, enemy varieties(?), animation, more advanced graphic etc
I really want to see the numbers that you can share to say BotW have more content than FF7R
Kupfer
Member
Halo 2 | $120 million | 2-3 years
This is a "fun" one.
For some context, the game was in development hell and had the biggest crunch ever.
The demo that was shown at e3 2003 was smoke and mirrors and the game wouldn't have worked as it was, the engine had to be reworked and the real work of getting the game to gold only happened a few months before release.
Nevertheless, Halo 2 was worked on after the success of Halo CE, even if a lot of things had to be thrown out and rewritten during development.
For more information, look into the linked article - it's a nice read.
There were certainly already ideas and concepts in the background, but as far as I've read, the team was busy with Witcher 3 and the add-ons, especially Blood & Wine, released in may 2016.
Only after that is the "real" development of CP2077 supposed to have started.
This is a "fun" one.
For some context, the game was in development hell and had the biggest crunch ever.
The demo that was shown at e3 2003 was smoke and mirrors and the game wouldn't have worked as it was, the engine had to be reworked and the real work of getting the game to gold only happened a few months before release.
Nevertheless, Halo 2 was worked on after the success of Halo CE, even if a lot of things had to be thrown out and rewritten during development.
For more information, look into the linked article - it's a nice read.
I saw the trailer for the announcement back then and was instantly hyped and wanted to play the game. but the trailer came much too early, perhaps also as a kind of "kickstarter" program to see if there was any interest among the players.
There were certainly already ideas and concepts in the background, but as far as I've read, the team was busy with Witcher 3 and the add-ons, especially Blood & Wine, released in may 2016.
Only after that is the "real" development of CP2077 supposed to have started.
Last edited:
The Cockatrice
Gold Member
Old poorly paid devs vs
Modern overpaid devs
Yep, gaming industry is fucked.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
I always wondered why once a game is up and running the developers don't just make another game with new locations, etc. But essentially have all the other stuff already worked out. Similar to what you're proposing.
It doesn't make sense to me, but the response I got when asking someone working in games was that it wouldn't actually be that much less work. As a layman, you'd think that they'd just drop a new map on the old game and work out some kind of story and boom there's a new title.
That we haven't seen that approach adopted, most publishers would be happy to see sequels to hit games be available quicker and cheaper, and people would definitely buy them, should confirm that it doesn't, unfortunately, work like that.
I know you're talking about making a lower tech game, but those games still had hundreds of people working on them, and in that sense, wage inflation is a big part of modern budgets vs more vintage ones.
Last edited:
Ribi
Member
For those looking to play the cut Bungie content they couldn't implement there is a nice workshop mod that adds it back in.
newtypepilot
Member
AAAA goat Skulls and Bones, 11 years, priceless
Dazraell
Member
Prototyping, pre-production and full production are all part of the development process though. I think it's very misleading to claim it shouldn't be included as development time as regardless how we phrase it CD Projekt has invested time, resources and money into creating the stuff prior the full production from 2016. Heck, even money spent on the first trailer and for creating their vision for Night City in 2077 implies they spent time on conceptualising how this game should look
To my understanding, Cyberpunk had a small team spearheaded by a different game director (I believe his name was Mateusz Janik), while main bulk of CDPR was busy with creating The Witcher 3. They had an ambition of having two projects created simultaneously and ultimately failed as they overestimated the scope of both of these games and manpower needed to make them happen. When they finished working on Blood & Wine, Cyberpunk has changed game director to Adam Badowski and they decided to scrap the older stuff, hit the reset button and create everything from scratch. But still, I feel time spent on it in the past still counts
I can try to look for some sources but it was at the time when CDPR wasn't as big as it is these days and most of them were on Polish websites. As an example, here is CDPR's half year report from 2014 (unfortunately in Polish) which directly says that the company financed the development of both Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077. It doesn't have to mean that game was in full production, but it doesn't change the fact that some work was being done on it
Last edited:
nemiroff
Gold Member
Spider-Man 2 | $300 million | 5 years (need source) | 2023
Starfield | $300-$400 million | 8 years | 2023
Callisto Protocol | $161.5million | 3 years | 2022
$300 million to copy paste.., $400 million worth of loading screens.. and $161 million worth of stutters.. What a waste.
Starfield | $300-$400 million | 8 years | 2023
Callisto Protocol | $161.5million | 3 years | 2022
$300 million to copy paste.., $400 million worth of loading screens.. and $161 million worth of stutters.. What a waste.
Kupfer
Member
Yes, that may all be true. I am not claiming the opposite.
Then you would have to define a fixed point in advance as to when a game is in development.
Does development begin with the idea in the visionary's head, does development begin when this idea is written down on paper, does development begin when talking to potential colleagues about this idea, does development begin when the first keystroke is made in the development environment, does development begin when the first salary is paid to developers ... you could go on and on.
As I said, you need a baseline for when a game is in development, but we won't be able to agree on this here, as we simply don't have insight into every single project and can only speculate based on reports.
That's why I wouldn't regard the figures in this thread as complete and absolute, but rather as a rough guide.
EDIT:
cormack12
The official name of the game is "God of War: Ragnarök" not "[...] Ragnarok"
This is a difference, as it involves a different pronunciation in languages with the letter "ö".
Last edited:
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
It’s unbelievable how giant yet mismanaged this industry is and it keeps growing. Studios closing and layoffs because of underperforming release. The death of mid-budget. Unrealistic release dates. Chasing short-term profit leading to rushed and broken games. Hype leading to ridiculous expectations.
Boralf
Member
Undertale | $5000 | 3 years | 2015
Kupfer
Member
Last edited:
midnightAI
Member
The difference between those three is we know one of them has sold enough to be profitable so it isn't an issue for that one. The other two wont be making their money back (one 'may' do 'if' they release it on rival console(s))
Dazraell
Member
I feel it should be counted from the moment when the project gets officially greenlighted and a team is formed that begins working on it. Considering the game was announced on 2012 (back then it was announced as just Cyberpunk game, the full title was unveiled a year later) it means the project was already a signed thing, isn't it? I don't think they would outright announce it and keep an idea on a methaporical napkin for several years until 2016
Kupfer
Member
Even if I agree with your statement, we simply have to stick to the sources we have.
We can't just say that it's been in development since it was announced because we don't know - we can only assume.
Work must have already gone into the trailer in the run-up to the announcement, so back to the question from earlier - what time do we pick?
Since we don't know that date of the official develepment start, but we have a linked source that gives a date, we'll have to go with that until we have better information.
Feel free to send a request to CDPR for an official statement, in my experience they respond to emails within a few weeks.
Dazraell
Member
This is a video from 2012 where CD Projekt Red's co-founder literally says they have a second team working on the Cyberpunk game and presents their vision for the game. Conveniently it's also in English
Kupfer
Member
Last edited:
Dazraell
Member
No worries. I'm just always baffled at the "game was developed only since 2016" narrative as to my understanding that statement was tied to the game entering full production stage which basically means that their design, prototypes and concepts for the game that they made earlier are completed and they can start working on translating them into complete project. There was a still a team of people who worked on the game before that reset button thingie and unfortunately as sometimes happens in game development, the project was internally rebooted from the ground up, while still retaining some of its ideas as Night City was always supposed to be a setting
Similar thing actually happened with The Witcher 1. It was developed in 5 years (between 2002-2007), but some early part of it was spent on creating it on a different engine and back then game was supposed to be a hack'n'slash inspired by Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games where you can pick your own character. They scrapped it, licenced a different engine and started completely from scratch by changing their vision for the game. And even then some things have changed as if I remember correctly, Geralt wasn't intended to be the protagonist until much later phase of development but a witcher with a different name
Don’t forget that the average salary of Polish devs was like 3 to 5 times less than American devs, that must have helped a lot back then. Even if the team size was also pretty small (150 core devs for TW3, Eastern European devs are way more productive than those closer to the ocean)
Now that CDPR has become way more international and that Poland has had a higher economic growth than the Western average I d guess the salary gap is much closer now.
00_Zer0
Member
SportsFan581
Member
It's getting more expensive for sure, but those breakout games with lower budgets shows you that it is still possible to not risk as much.
WitchHunter
Banned
Kill the knitting classes, halve the gameplay time, problem solved. Sell them for 60 bucks.
Hayter2000
Neo Member
Sorry to necro the thread but Cyberpunk leaks showed that there was a 2013 build of it with enviorments, characters voiced and animated, and a playable version of a half-built quest. It was also, curiously enough, in third-person. It's possible that Cyberpunk was being redeveloped and restarted in some way all the way up until 2018-2019 when the Johnny Silverhand-Keanu Reeves storyline was set in stone.
Last edited: