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

Gaming development is continuously harder and longer, so expecting similar level of output on a 20 year difference window won't help anyone.

NES, SNES and even some PS1 titles were concluded in less than 4 months dev time. A similar received/scope game nowadays would be 5 years in development.

That is true, but the other big difference is that when LucasArts was in charge, they worked with a lot of different developers to deliver games.  Star Wars games were a huge part of the identity of LucasArts.  That was a huge focus of the compamy.  Once EA got the license that all changed.  It was just another license to them, and clearly not a big focus.  How could it be compared to LucasArts?

On that I certainly agree with you.

The license could have been done like the one granted to Insomniac. They don't have exclusive rights to make any and all Marvel games, they were just granted permission to make games under SM universe (and other can still do it as well if they pay for it).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."