| HappySqurriel said:
The "general leaps" in graphical processing power have also included "generational leaps" in the cost to develop games. Since the NES each generation of game has resulted in development costs increasing to 2 to 4 times the level of previous generations. Being that games already need to be released on the XBox 360, PS3 and PC to get multi-millions in sales to be financially viable, games would (probably) need over 10 million sales in order to justify the increased development costs. While there are a handful of games a year that could justify this increase in cost based on sales, most studios are (probably) going to try to keep costs close to where they are currently; which would limit any increase in the quality of visuals.
While additional processing power could be used for "techical" features, like 1080p output (or 3D display), producing a console at this point in time that trys to sell itself on processing power alone is a losing strategy. |
Obviusly power alone is not going to do anything, it is a tool for developers to create new experiances that couldn't be done before, just like new controllers etc. My point is that next generation needs something like that to suceed, current consoles but 4x more powerful is not a recipe for sucess, as that is not going to mean experiances drastically different from what is available now. But it's not like MS can launch with Kinect 2.0 to make up for a less that staller leap in power as the kinect experiance is already available on 360. So unless someone can get a BMI working in time for next generation then a generational leap in power (~8X) is the obvius easy route.
As for development costs they are increasing despite static hardware, average AAA games today cost more than AAA games 4 years ago despite being on the same hardware (there are outliers like GTA 4) and adjusted for inflation Shenmu is still one of the most expensive games ever made. If developers want to lower development costs then they need to change how they make games. With a staff of ~90 people CD Projekt RED managed to make a AAA 30+ hour RPG with 2 completely different middle sections for 8 million dollers yes the average wage is ~50% lower in Poland but Final Fantasy XII cost $48 million on the PS2, FF IX cost $40 million on the PSX, Too Human cost over 60 million etc and the Witcher 2 has far better graphics than any of those games and cost a fraction to make, Crysis cost $22 million yet Killzone 2 cost $45 million and Halo 3 cost $60 million and COD costs ~$40-50 million a pop (with a $100+ million marketing budget). As you can see better graphics don't always = higher budget. Hell your average marketing budget for a AAA game is usally $20-60 million usally higher than the development budget. The biggest factors are scope and complexity with nevelty also a big factor (making something that has never been done before is expensive) that is not to say that graphical fidality is not a major factor but it's not the be all and end all for the increases in development budgets it's more a facor of fidality x scope + novelty. A strong push towards higher margine digital distrabution will also help to offset production increases next generation.
We will also likely see far less custom engines next gen as they get ever more complex to make and engines like Unreal and Cryengine get ever better. Also a move to fully dynamic lighting and shadowing which will mean less expensive precomputing of effects, hopefully more procedural generation (why stop at trees Speed Tree? where is Speed Terrain, Speed NPC etc?), more of a focus on image quality over graphical fidality (1080p native with AA and never droping below 30fps), tessilated LOD systems meaning that less LOD models have to be created plus less popin and also more stylized graphics there are plenty of art styles that look good yet require simpler models and textures, not all games need to look realistic, but that shouldn't mean everything is cell shaded ether diversity is key.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
