• 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.

Next-gen games = Endangered species ?

Source: C & VG.com

Tuesday 7th September 2004

Expect much fewer games on next-gen consoles, warns developer, as development times prepare to shoot through the roof

13:16 The number of games releasing on the likes of Xbox 2 and PS3 are likely to become less and less, an industry developer has warned, claiming that technological advancements and demands for more complex software will lead to projects requiring at least two years preparation before they can enter development.

"We have the opportunity to elevate games to be the tenth art," said Tameem Antoniades, the co-founder of Just Add Monsters at last week's European Game Developers Conference. "[However] the expectations of players and publishers are rocketing. With every new generation, people want more realism."

Then - referencing the nine-moths his Cambridge-based team has already spent prototyping a next-gen samurai slasher entitled Heavenly Swords - he added : "We found that everything takes a very long time to make."

Antoniades' warning echoes similar comments recently made by EA's vice president Jeff Brown, who told BBC News that due to a rise in development costs, companies have to invest extra time into ensuring that their products are good enough to sell.

It is a progression that is also likely to see a reduction in the number of independent developers unable to recover from just a single failed risk.

"I don't see the retail price increasing as games are already expensive," added Antoniades, allaying initial fears that the rise in costs would be reflected at retail. "In the past, sales of 500,000 units would be a hit. Now you need to sell millions.

"In the next generation there will be far fewer publishers, sinking their money into far fewer games. I believe that most independent developers will disappear, either through going bust or due to merger or acquisition."

Of course, this is a trend that is already being witnessed with the current crop of consoles. Galleon developer Confounding Factor is suspected to have closed after spending literally years developing the Xbox game, while developer/publishers like Rage went bankrupt after big investments such as David Beckham Soccer failed to recuperate sufficient revenue at retail.

Still, as the famous saying goes, it's quality not quantity, and while fewer games may be mooted on the next batch of home consoles, as long as the quality is sky-high, should us gamers really be complaining? Of course, a big concern is that of originality and innovation, which may be sacrificed in favour of big sequels and licenses. Plus, a monopolisation is rarely good for any industry.

How the gaming world pans over the two next years or so will make for very interesting reading indeed.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
As much trash as pads each consoles available library I'd say that's a good thing.
 
I think the PC scene has already seen similar events. The blockbuster quality games are the result of 3 year development times and most of everything else gets over looked.
 

open_mouth_

insert_foot_
This is an interesting topic... I think we'll see the lives of the PS2, Xbox, and even the Gamecube get extended for several more years by primarily 3rd party support and some 1st party support. All these consoles have pretty strong followings and enough juice left over to still have high quality games released on them... EA is the best indicator of all this since they pretty much confirmed support for the PS2/Xbox well into the life of the next-gen consoles.

EA goes where the money is and I don't doubt that other publishers will follow suit.
 

Insertia

Member
With PS3 and Xbox2 many developers are going to fold unless they have the time, cash, and resources to keep them afloat.

If PSP is succussful it could be a good thing for small/medium sized developers who want to create large scale games but don't have the resoucres of EA or Square Enix to pump out stuff for next gen systems.
 

element

Member
hasn't people known this for a while?

games cost a lot of money to make and small studios can't afford to make them, at least not at the same quality as large studios and large studios can't afford to pay for games that won't sell.

Art budgets for next-gen will be huge. contracting out asset creation will be HUGE this generation. Just too much content to make. Hell, just making normal maps for already created assets might be a business.

this shouldn't come to a shock to anymore.

EA didn't help with buying Criteron/Renderware. Devs are already dumping it since EA bought them. Removing a quality middleware provider hurts everyone.
 

Mama Smurf

My penis is still intact.
Yeah, we all knew this was going to happen.

The industry needs to go through this crap though. It might be bad for a while, but we'll come out the otherside with something that actually works.
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
That's great IMO.

Less sequels I hope. Tired of those.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
DaCocoBrova said:
That's great IMO.

Less sequels I hope. Tired of those.

in fact this is bad, sequels are low risk games. New IP is high risk. Less risks = less new IPs meaning more sequels.
 

Redbeard

Banned
claiming that technological advancements and demands for more complex software will lead to projects requiring at least two years preparation before they can enter development.

Isn't this the very thing that using XNA is supposed to alleviate?
 
In some cases this is true and other times not really. Most companies, especially those dealing with Xbox, have very hi res source for their games. Converting this hi res source to the next gen is going to be similar. Scope is going to be the killer...as is supporting all the next gen consoles as well as the current ones.

Something the size of GTA at very high res levels is going to take an army of artists to complete! As long as tool development continues to improve allowing for quick methods to bang out the art the games will continue to move at a fast pace.
 

doncale

Banned
remember the articles on the Super Famicom / SNES before it came out? they said there would only be 1 game per year, per 3rd party.

dont worry.
 

madara

Member
"With every new generation, people want more realism."


Hey, speak for yourself! Not everyone is typical FPS? sport us lackey. Day that 90 percent of all games have the style of "the real world" I out of here.
 
madara said:
"With every new generation, people want more realism."


Hey, speak for yourself! Not everyone is typical FPS? sport us lackey. Day that 90 percent of all games have the style of "the real world" I out of here.

First thing I did on reading the post was copy and paste that quote to say a similar thing. Have they actually asked anyone or done focus testing asking about how far we want/need realistic graphics to go in order to be satisfied?

One of the reasons for hardware cycles is that it reinvigorates the industry every 5/6 years. The introduction of new handhelds as the home consoles pass through their maturity will help greatly... but have they considered that each time they help themselves out, they're killing off talent in the process and the source of the real money in the business? It's software that sells and makes money. Is it really going to make sense for these hardware cycles to continue at this same pace when all it does is make software (aka making money) more expensive, more difficult and more risky?

Something has got to give.

I really hope gamers show these kind of statements are wrong, and that there are markets for Xbox/PS2/GCN well into next gen. PSOne had a good run actually.. bottom line is gamers like good games.
 
Expect much fewer games on next-gen consoles, warns developer, as development times prepare to shoot through the roof
they say this every time... remember how they said it woud be sooooooo hard to make games for that hot new ps2.. or n64.. or genesis...
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Welcome to "Things Nintendo Brought Up Two Years Ago, But They Were Laughed Out of the Room 101."

A ceiling is going to be reached, when is anyone's guess. But at that point, graphics will be as powerful as we need them to be to get "realism."
 
Besides that one man's trash is another man's treasure, I doubt increasing costs will actually lead to a smaller proportion of trash. Look at Hollywood: huge development costs, a few studios dominate everything, but still plenty of trash. What it will lead to is fewer risky projects and more safe, formulaic ones. Fewer niche games and more mass-market ones.

And yes, 'they' said this would happen last generation, and guess what - it did. Mergers, buyouts, bankruptcies, smaller developers struggling to get by, mid-size projects disappearing, etc. Next generation will be like that, but more so.
 

HyperionX

Member
As long as the market's growing rapidly it's probably not a big deal; the extra costs will be covered up by extra opportunities. But if the market doesn't grow...
 

Flynn

Member
rastex said:
Necessity breeds innovation. That's all I have to say.

And the innovation of the next gen will be to create more inexpensive, but fun 2D platformers and cell-shaded 3D titles.
 

rastex

Banned
Flynn said:
And the innovation of the next gen will be to create more inexpensive, but fun 2D platformers and cell-shaded 3D titles.

I was thinking more along the lines of programatically created textures and terrain. I mean why are modellers STILL creating everyday objects such as cars, chairs and all of that. In movies each object isn't handcrafted, the basic ones are simply bought from the nearest store, and the more important/elaborate items are made by hand. Manufacturing the actual objects already occurs overseas, same thing will happen with their virtual counterparts.

edit: And one of the most expensive pieces of content is animation, if animation can be replaced by physical simulation then you've cut down on your content authoring by a VERY significant amount.

Just think. Physics based animation, procedural textures, random character generation and object libraries that you can purchase. All you'd really need is a GUI guy, a main character modeller and a main object modeller. Of course your game won't look that great, but it's a cheap start and feasible for tiny studios.
 

Flynn

Member
rastex said:
I was thinking more along the lines of programatically created textures and terrain. I mean why are modellers STILL creating everyday objects such as cars, chairs and all of that. In movies each object isn't handcrafted, the basic ones are simply bought from the nearest store, and the more important/elaborate items are made by hand. Manufacturing the actual objects already occurs overseas, same thing will happen with their virtual counterparts.

edit: And one of the most expensive pieces of content is animation, if animation can be replaced by physical simulation then you've cut down on your content authoring by a VERY significant amount.

Just think. Physics based animation, procedural textures, random character generation and object libraries that you can purchase. All you'd really need is a GUI guy, a main character modeller and a main object modeller. Of course your game won't look that great, but it's a cheap start and feasible for tiny studios.

You make good points, but every shortcut or timesaving technological breakthrough will just free up graphics hounds to push for more reality.

I think many of us are for cutting or graphical "losses" and urging developers to spend the time they'd spend on figuring out how to render a mullberry bush being riddled by an AK-47 on things like story, gameplay innovation and decent voice acting.
 
Top Bottom