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

Forums - Gaming - Which of the big three consoles manufactures put the most big name devs out of business this gen?

Kresnik on 21 October 2012

NightDragon83 said:

I think TS4 would done very well because of the FPS boom experienced during this generation, coupled with online multiplayer now being fully realized for console gaming after going through some growing pains the previous gen.  TS3 had the misfortune of being released late in the cycle last generation with little attention or fanfare, and being overshadowed by much bigger games like Halo 2.  Like one of the posts after this one said... Haze on PS3 alone outsold TS3 which was released across all 3 platforms last gen, so I have no doubt that TS4, which would most likely have been on PS360, would have done very well for itself.


I completely understand where you're coming from saying this and I'm sure it's possible that TS4 would've been bigger than I expected it to be, I just personally think it wouldn't happen.  There was already a pseudo-FPS-boom last generation (like you point out: Halo, but other stuff like Medal of Honor as well), yet Timesplitters continued to skirt around mostly-average sales.  

Apparently T2 managed 1.7 million sales across 3 platforms - which isn't bad and does show potential, but with the release of Modern Warfare and the shift in design of FPS', I think Timesplitters would have trouble keeping up.  Again, I absolutely adore the series, but the design is dated (which is what I love about it).  It's totally conceivable that TS could have been redesigned to fit in with the Call of Duty crowd, but if that happened then it would pretty much cease to be Timesplitters.  It might as well be Haze or any other knock-off 'serious' shooter.  And if it did release as a proper sequel following the original design, I imagine it would have done similarly to something like Unreal Tournament 3, another game of dated design:

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=unreal+tournament+III&publisher=&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200

Decent enough (1 million across PS360), but not enough to turn a profit.



Find my website here

Around the Network
Sal.Paradise on 21 October 2012

Man if that's all the PS360's fault, the Wii U is going to be a bloodbath! Even more powerful AND you're expected to use a second screen, however will the poor devs cope.



lilbroex on 21 October 2012
pezus said:
lilbroex said:


There is no specific source. Its something you will have to research on your own as its not carved in stone and has a range.

Most of what you will find are allusions like this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2Fgaming%2F2012%2F7%2F19%2F3170432%2Fubisoft-says-wii-u-development-cost-not-a-huge-investment-plans-more&ei=hEeEULH2J4O-9QTbyoCYBA&usg=AFQjCNGTsdJOBOyODYgg5tol41mIbD6SOQ

 

This is the best I can find, and no, I'm not debating it with you. I ashamed of myself for even putting in the effot (it was on the first page in google search) I used to look for it. If you really want the truth that badly you would look for it yourself.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/6299-wii-development-costs-remain-low/

Ok, so you decide that rather than backing up your own points, trying to shame the people arguing with you into looking for something, that doesn't exist btw, is a better idea. Basically what you do every single time.

 Btw, that first link has nothing to do with Wii. The second link pretty much proves my point and disproves yours. 

" For example, third party software developers and publishers are lauding the console's lower development costs, which are expected to almost half as much as those for the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360."

Another thing to note is that PS3 and 360 games cost more at retail, so the difference in profits in reality is even smaller than that. The THQ dev quoted in that article was talking about great games such as "The Ant Bully" and "Rampage: Total Destruction" as examples because they were nothing more than ports.

Nope, I'm just tired of all of you begging sources and then ignoring them exept for where there are small parts that you can take out of context.



Kresnik on 21 October 2012
lilbroex said:

This is the best I can find, and no, I'm not debating it with you. I ashamed of myself for even putting in the effot (it was on the first page in google search) I used to look for it. If you really want the truth that badly you would look for it yourself.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/6299-wii-development-costs-remain-low/

The low dev cost was the reason for all of the shovelware that people complained about. I thought that would be common sense by now, but live and learn...


I don't particularly want to get into an argument but just so you know:

$5-8 million is not "10 times lower" than $12-20 million.  They're both a little over 50% lower.  For it to be 10 times, development costs would have to be in the region of $1-2 million (for Wii).



Find my website here

lilbroex on 21 October 2012
Sal.Paradise said:

Man if that's all the PS360's fault, the Wii U is going to be a bloodbath! Even more powerful AND you're expected to use a second screen, however will the poor devs cope.

Failure to read alert. All devs who have commented ont he Wii U's cost said that its comparatively low as that is how Nintendo designed.

Strenght was not the problem with the PS3/360. It was that they jumped to high to quickly. Devs couldn't manage abrupt "HUGE" jump in costs.



Around the Network
menx64 on 21 October 2012
Kresnik said:

NightDragon83 said:

Free Radical with a sequel to Timesplitters that fans have been clamoring for, then odds are they're both alive and kicking today.


I feel like people still don't fully understand what went on with Free Radical.  If you get chance, read the Eurogamer article I linked earlier in the thread.

Now, no doubt Haze's lukewarm reception and average sales didn't help things for FR.  Absolutely no doubt.  There was another massive factor at play here though, namely Star Wars Battlefront 3.  I think they'd been developing it for about 2 and a half years before LucasArts pulled the plug on a nearly complete product.  Without any way of making any money back from that game, it put them in a really precarious position.

Also, I think it's pretty hard to say that Timesplitters 4 would have kept them in business.  Don't get me wrong - Timesplitters is my favourite first-person-shooter series ever and I would have loved to have seen Timesplitters 4.  But Future Perfect managed less than 500k sales across 3 platforms:

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=timesplitters%3A+future+perfect&publisher=&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200

Those are genuinely really awful figures, no two ways about it.  There would be no guarantee that T4 would have done any better.  And if it had bombed like FP did with the increased development costs, that would almost certainly have spelled the end of Free Radical.

I was not aware of that, very sad indeed. I bought the game (GC) as a friend's recommendation, and turned out to be a very wise decision. Amazing game... 



Menx64

3DS code: 1289-8222-7215

NNid: Menx064

lilbroex on 21 October 2012
Kresnik said:
lilbroex said:

This is the best I can find, and no, I'm not debating it with you. I ashamed of myself for even putting in the effot (it was on the first page in google search) I used to look for it. If you really want the truth that badly you would look for it yourself.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/6299-wii-development-costs-remain-low/

The low dev cost was the reason for all of the shovelware that people complained about. I thought that would be common sense by now, but live and learn...


I don't particularly want to get into an argument but just so you know:

$5-8 million is not "10 times lower" than $12-20 million.  They're both a little over 50% lower.  For it to be 10 times, development costs would have to be in the region of $1-2 million (for Wii).

I never made the comment that devs costs were 10 times lower, Pezus didAlso, that was just their cost at launch. The dev costs for Wii games also dropped over time to a much lower number than the PS3/360 comparative drop. Third, they were not talking A+ games. They were talking generic, average games. They stated that there was a "ramp up" for the PS3/360 in that area. Fourth, this was only for Ubisoft.

And this is why I don't bother getting sources. Its not really going ot matter. I can tell from experience when someone want a source because they want to know the truth, and when someone asks for a source in order to halt foward movement or they don't like what you said.

 

 

 

 

The source I remember reading said that top quality Wii games( like Red Steel 2, Overlord Dark Legend)  cost 5-10 million to make and top quality PS3/360(COD, Red Oblivion) games cost 15-30. I can't find that one.

Games like Uncharted, Lair and Killzone likely exceed those costs.



Kresnik on 21 October 2012
lilbroex said:

I never made the comment that devs costs were 10 times lower, Pezus did


@ bold, I presume he's referring to the fact that you saida 1 million seller for PS360 would not make a profit, but a 150k seller for Wii would.  His numbers are way off for the point I think he's trying to make, though.

Still, you are correct, you didn't explicitily say 10 times.  I apologise.



Find my website here

lilbroex on 21 October 2012
Kresnik said:
lilbroex said:

I never made the comment that devs costs were 10 times lower, Pezus did


@ bold, I presume he's referring to the fact that you saida 1 million seller for PS360 would not make a profit, but a 150k seller for Wii would.  His numbers are way off for the point I think he's trying to make, though.

Still, you are correct, you didn't explicitily say 10 times.  I apologise.


You are truncating the facts. I call foul. I said 150-300k for the average game.

Top quality developments(with the few there were) gnerally needed around 500k.



Hynad on 21 October 2012

The problem doesn't come from developers. It's the users asking for ever greater graphics, physics, A.I. etc, that are at the forefront of the problem...

The devs know that if they want more sales, they need to deliver. It's the same for blockbuster movies. Always a bit bigger and grander and more epic, etc...

Just a look at all the bitching going on in all those graphics centric threads and you'll have your answer. Heck, there's currently one dedicated sorely to the beauty of PC graphics right now. With people bragging about how great this or that game look son the PC.

Nope... The big 3 isn't responsible for the closure of most studios. Gamers are.