By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Developers see costs double for Durango sequels to Xbox 360 titles

crissindahouse said:
mootap said:
I always wonder how good must games look for us gamers.I mean I thought Pong was the shizz back in the day..now we are upto Uncharted Standards.How much more do we need or want???


yeah i thought about that today when i saw a football (soccer for some) game. if i would really like to play with players looking like real humans. i'm not sure but ii think i wouldn't like it then. same with a shooter game. if the people would exactly look like real humans i think it wouldn't be so cool anymore.

the graphics can still improve a lot to make i better for me but i think if it would be really like reality it would be too much, i wish to have the feeling that i play a game and not real persons with a robot in their head^^

but that's just what i think, if i could play those games maybe i would like it even when i think i wouldn't like it, who knows...

It's not just about looking life like , I would rather they used a lot of that extra power on things such as better AI , physics , draw distance , pop up etc. ,

but increased graphical fidelity does have it's place especially if it is used to create grandiose worlds with a sense of awe and wonder ,not spent on creating mundane minutia.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Around the Network
mjk45 said:
crissindahouse said:
mootap said:
I always wonder how good must games look for us gamers.I mean I thought Pong was the shizz back in the day..now we are upto Uncharted Standards.How much more do we need or want???


yeah i thought about that today when i saw a football (soccer for some) game. if i would really like to play with players looking like real humans. i'm not sure but ii think i wouldn't like it then. same with a shooter game. if the people would exactly look like real humans i think it wouldn't be so cool anymore.

the graphics can still improve a lot to make i better for me but i think if it would be really like reality it would be too much, i wish to have the feeling that i play a game and not real persons with a robot in their head^^

but that's just what i think, if i could play those games maybe i would like it even when i think i wouldn't like it, who knows...

It's not just about looking life like , I would rather they used a lot of that extra power on things such as better AI , physics , draw distance , pop up etc. ,

but increased graphical fidelity does have it's place especially if it is used to create grandiose worlds with a sense of awe and wonder ,not spent on creating mundane minutia.

yeah sure especially ai is still horrible in games nowadays and has to get much better to be "good". and as example a game like forza 4 would be much much better for me without aliasing but just talking about the "look" of humans in games i think not seeing a difference to a real human anymore isn't what i would like to see (and this will take still decades to get to this point).



Crystalchild said:
so they need to spend MORE (twice as much) Money on developing games, for something that is a given to every today's PC Game?

No it's not a given on every PC because of the different specs on offer , that is why scaling is important , how much more expensive it will be is anybody's guess .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

mjk45 said:
crissindahouse said:
mootap said:
I always wonder how good must games look for us gamers.I mean I thought Pong was the shizz back in the day..now we are upto Uncharted Standards.How much more do we need or want???


yeah i thought about that today when i saw a football (soccer for some) game. if i would really like to play with players looking like real humans. i'm not sure but ii think i wouldn't like it then. same with a shooter game. if the people would exactly look like real humans i think it wouldn't be so cool anymore.

the graphics can still improve a lot to make i better for me but i think if it would be really like reality it would be too much, i wish to have the feeling that i play a game and not real persons with a robot in their head^^

but that's just what i think, if i could play those games maybe i would like it even when i think i wouldn't like it, who knows...

It's not just about looking life like , I would rather they used a lot of that extra power on things such as better AI , physics , draw distance , pop up etc. ,

but increased graphical fidelity does have it's place especially if it is used to create grandiose worlds with a sense of awe and wonder ,not spent on creating mundane minutia.

that

especially physics (ai is not really a power issue ) but physics can be way more immerssive in the future.... real 3d world and textures with real particules dencity, mass, gravity, and simple thing like when i write my name in bullets leave it for the rest of the games same if i do some donuts with the transport.... and keep those bodies arround and show them decay and can put a couple extra in his face for target practice when ever.... 

that and sound.... keep improving on 5.1 push 7.2 or even more cause since i got myself a serious sound system, i'm sold.... to me it made a bigger difference on the quality of the game when i switched from 2.0 stereo to 5.1 than when i went from SD picture to HD... and i switched to hd before 5.1

beside that 16 core even real cores not threads is not really far fetched for a console that is at least 18 month before release more likely 30 and even maybe 42 month before release... if the hardware is suppose to hold until 2020



i havent a good feeling about this, i hope microsofts and sonys next console are not powerhouses. its bad economic times etc, id be happy with improvements in performance as if they are going for top notch it will be costly to buy and costly to make games for



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Around the Network
crissindahouse said:

ok development costs will be 2x as much but the rest of the costs (shipping, advertisement, trade-fair appearance and so on) won't increase 100% just because the games were more expensive to make right? so that means whole costs for a game won't increase 100%.

but i really think games have to get a higher price anytime soon. they can't always have the prices they had 20 years ago with increasing costs for everything. no indurstry is doing this, i have to pay much more for a car than i had 20 years ago as well and i have to pay more for my steak in a restaurant or my hotel room as well and just look at the cinema ticket costs from 20 years ago and from nowadays.

gamers have to realize that there will be the time they have to pay more for games to make them profitable like the own company they work in has to increase prices from time to time to pay the higher loan you get from time to time and the other increasing costs.

Interesting point, around 15-20% of the money you pay for a game is for the developer, that means between 9 and 12 dollars. If they are saying that the cost are doubling that means an overall increase of that same amount in the final price, or it will require that they sale almost 50% more copies of the game to earn some money from it, not 100% more because the publisher will pay that money in advance and take that cut first.

I can se many developers disappearing in the next couple of years if thing continue like this.



I thought games were more expensive in the past right? Also, the growing games market should offset some of the increases right? So games won't actually cost twice as much.



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

I think Wii U games will be $59.99, and Orbis/Durango games will be $69.99, perhaps with budget games or late ports released at 59.99.



 

flagstaad said:
crissindahouse said:

ok development costs will be 2x as much but the rest of the costs (shipping, advertisement, trade-fair appearance and so on) won't increase 100% just because the games were more expensive to make right? so that means whole costs for a game won't increase 100%.

but i really think games have to get a higher price anytime soon. they can't always have the prices they had 20 years ago with increasing costs for everything. no indurstry is doing this, i have to pay much more for a car than i had 20 years ago as well and i have to pay more for my steak in a restaurant or my hotel room as well and just look at the cinema ticket costs from 20 years ago and from nowadays.

gamers have to realize that there will be the time they have to pay more for games to make them profitable like the own company they work in has to increase prices from time to time to pay the higher loan you get from time to time and the other increasing costs.

Interesting point, around 15-20% of the money you pay for a game is for the developer, that means between 9 and 12 dollars. If they are saying that the cost are doubling that means an overall increase of that same amount in the final price, or it will require that they sale almost 50% more copies of the game to earn some money from it, not 100% more because the publisher will pay that money in advance and take that cut first.

I can se many developers disappearing in the next couple of years if thing continue like this.


With the possible exception of in-house Nintendo games, I think we're going to see fewer and fewer releases overall on the three new platforms.  Indie games will continue to grow and prosper as they have since 2006, but retail released will be AAA blockbusters that are all expected to sell at least 2 or 3 million in order to justify being green-lit for development.  I think, like I said, the only games that might not be so expensive to make are Wii U games, since they will likely be far less expensive to make than Orbis or Durango.   But I think Wii U games will cost $59.99, and I fully expect at least the AAA Orbis/Durango games to cost $69.99.  To me that's just an inevitability.



 

sperrico87 said:

With the possible exception of in-house Nintendo games, I think we're going to see fewer and fewer releases overall on the three new platforms.  Indie games will continue to grow and prosper as they have since 2006, but retail released will be AAA blockbusters that are all expected to sell at least 2 or 3 million in order to justify being green-lit for development.  I think, like I said, the only games that might not be so expensive to make are Wii U games, since they will likely be far less expensive to make than Orbis or Durango.   But I think Wii U games will cost $59.99, and I fully expect at least the AAA Orbis/Durango games to cost $69.99.  To me that's just an inevitability.

Both are real possibilities, another one is that the developers start to sell more and more DLC as that is usually low risk. Take a look at Capcom, Asura's Wrath TRUE ending is being sold as DLC. So in order to see the real ending of the game you have to pay the original 60 dollars + 7 additional ones. Same thing with day one DLC, if you don't get the Limited edition of some games that cost 70 dollars you have to pay extra for the day 1 DLC.