By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ssj12 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

"THQ stated that a big budget next gen game would cost around 100$ at retail they said it would cost almost double to develop over the current generation."

This is why the graphics race has to stop. They aren't making the games better (the good games are due to talent, not waving their specs around), and the sales have NOT risen this generation to match the increased cost over last generation.


Graphics should not affect development ability or cost. Its the hardware itself. The 360 uses simple tech compared to the PS3, which is why PS3 games still cost more to develop for and its cheaper to make the PS3 game the main platform and port over to the 360 versus the otherway around. Creation of higher quality textures and graphics might take a fraction longer, but the cost of making textures in Photoshop is the exact same no matter if your making an SNES game or a PlayStation 9 game.

If the Wii2, PS4, and x720 use similar tech then there is zero reason for developers to have to hire new developers to  teach themselved a platform.

The only expensive part of developing consoles is the fact your need new development kits and stronger PCs. Which by now devs should have been way, way overspec the PC side compared to the PS4/x720 thanks to Intel's Skulltrail. If not its their problem. Plus, to start things off there is always the PSN/XBLA/WW that smaller games can be made to make transitions to new platforms more profitable and easier.

$100 games will only happen if inflation goes sky-high, which is not the fault of the game industry, rather the government.


Did you miss my point entirely? How does "graphics race" mean "development on a new system"? Read my comment again.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs