By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ivant on 06 March 2017
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
Ivant said:
You know games aren't all about graphics right, it's the game play that should be king?

When you have CEOs complaining about the cost of games due to the rush for graphics at some point you have to step back and say enough is enough.

As I've said before, nobody hates Pixar films because they don't look realistic.

You can have both graphics and gameplay. As a consumer I desire both.

Plus, not all graphics effects/techniques actually increase development costs, some do the complete opposite and reduce costs.

Very true, you can have both, but the push for more pixels in the latest fifa/Cod remake are pushing prices up, games will be approaching £80 in the next gen. 

 

It cost $9m to produce the graphics for a ps3/360 title with the costs expected to double for the current gen, DS games on the other hand took $1m to produce. 

 

Gaming CEOs have said this is why games they cannot franchise are no longer profitable, reducing the likelihood they will take a risk on a new IP, with graphic costs it's incredibly risky to take a chance on a new IP. needing to sell over 1million copies to break even. 

 

That is killing innovation, at what point do we as consumers say the costs are getting ridiculous, the graphics are good enough, spend more on innovative game play, new story's and new characters? 

 

I've already seen estimations that on current trends the next generation of consoles will require £80 games. £60 this gen. 

 

All for more polygons which do little to actually cause more immersion, we need more innovation like VR to take gaming to the next level and leave the graphical quality where it is for a while in my opinion.

 

I'm hoping some CEOs will feel the same and look for an easier profit margin on the switch with roughly half the development costs, it just needs the user base to entice them