thismeintiel said:
I think people have got the costs of developing games a little skewed. More advanced games doesn't necessarily mean it costs more to produce. Much of the increase in gaming development has more to do with the cost of everything going up, not so much the HW they are developing it on. I mean, they're not paying per polygon or texture. If an incredibly powerful system is easy to develop for, than you could pump out a game for about the same amount of cost (probably less) than a weak system that is difficullt to develop for. I can't even imagine how cheap it is to develop on the Vita, if you have a PS3 version already in development, as one developer stated it took his team only an extra 2 weeks to port their PS3 game to the Vita. Look at something like GT5. That game was revealed to have a budget of $60M. While that seems pretty big, just keep in mind that GT5 is a big franchise game (which have larger budgets, anyway) and that covers development for over 5 years, with over 140 staff members working at PD. The vast majority of games only take 1-2 years to develop and have quite a fewer amount of staff working on them, so their budgets are going to be AT LEAST less than 1/3 of that. Then you have to factor in the scale of the game. A linear game that lasts for 6-8 hrs is going to cost much less than an open-world game that has 30+ hrs of content. |
Developers are very afraid of dev cost, do not understimate them. If this keeps going say goodbye to new AAA IPs, everything is going to be the CoDs, Assassins Creed, etc. and the first party games.
Nintendo and PC gamer








