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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Heavy Rain cost €16.7 million to make and made Sony "more than €100 million"

curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
veritaz said:

It's a blend of both, which is why i said it's a different experience. I think it succeded in what it was setting out to do and it shows in the fans, profit, reviews.

But the problem with playing both sides of the field is that ultimately you have to succeed as one or both. Heavy Rain wouldn't pass the standards expected of good movies, and because it reduces gameplay to a series of QTEs it doesn't win out as a game either. The erosion of gameplay quality in favour of story and visuals, the Hollywoodization of gaming, is already a grave threat to the medium, and Heavy Rain is a game that exemplifies this trend.


Who cares what the standards are the hollywood movies? The game is a push in the right direction to get games to be more interactve and give control over an story and make it your own. Not every game is the same and the variety is what makes its personal value seem. Games have proven themselves to become a medium which has always strived to become the point between films and life, in which you control the outcomes of situations and go into actual worlds. Games were always mean to evolve and technology allows that to happen. Games can still be games, but it also depends on how good you've become at gaming. Casual games are still games, story driven games are still games, you have to finish it, as simple as that. 

By moving towards films though, games move away from their own identity as a unique art form and therefore lessening the medium's greatest strength. I have no problem with games giving the player control over a story's outcome, but when QTEs take the place of what could and should be playable scenes, and when story is prioritised above gameplay, it's like a car trying to be a boat and ending up as a weird hybrid that works on neither land nor water.

Um...not true at all. If you've seen how powerful games are they are on the verge of having near CG-like graphics in action adventure game. The animation with the power of artistic, story and gameplay direction are making games simulators (just like they were in the old days) of our favorite superheroes, action stars and more. Remember when you played Batman, Action beat em ups back in the day and other various licensed titles? Well obviously they were trying to immitate the movie realm and other areas of the arts like comics. Look at DBZ and Naruto for instance. Those games could've been just like street fighter, but modern technology has allowed for them to play closer to the show. As technology increases we will be truly simulating the worlds weve wanted to be in. You are the gamer and the game is made to be played. If you want old school alone thats you. Games are not like a car being a boat. Games are the true medium that lets you ride the movies (unlike Universal Studios) and take part in the existence of the characters and follow them for 8-12 hour (or more) stories. It's always been that way...most just weren't paying attention. 

Except that prior to the 7th gen gameplay was almost always kept front and centre. Now we get extended QTE sequences or even non-interactive cutscenes where gameplay would have been a better choice. I have nothing against games that follow a cinematic story. But games are just that, games. You play a game, you watch a movie. When the watching takes precedence over the playing, a game has failed to accomplish the core goal of the medium.


QTE's only make sense where technology isnt sophiscated enough to work the animations at a high quality level. Next gen and other gens will pull scale and animation with serious power so in some cases games will be more interactive. For some games QTE is apart of the fabric of what the franchise is all about. Anyway, sooner or later we wont need them and more focus will be put on the gameplay. You play a game, you watch a movie? So wait...When you play MGS, Mass Effect, Uncharted, InFamous, Killzone, Halo 4 or even Gears of War, not once in your mind does it even come up that those would make for pretty interesting movies? Thats the point. Games have already surpassed movies and at this rate movies would not even do them justice. Movies have their place, but immersive games give gamers an escape that movie goers who aren't gamers would never get. Hell...the amount of cinematics in the average game today equals a 90 minute movie. 



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
veritaz said:

It's a blend of both, which is why i said it's a different experience. I think it succeded in what it was setting out to do and it shows in the fans, profit, reviews.

But the problem with playing both sides of the field is that ultimately you have to succeed as one or both. Heavy Rain wouldn't pass the standards expected of good movies, and because it reduces gameplay to a series of QTEs it doesn't win out as a game either. The erosion of gameplay quality in favour of story and visuals, the Hollywoodization of gaming, is already a grave threat to the medium, and Heavy Rain is a game that exemplifies this trend.


Who cares what the standards are the hollywood movies? The game is a push in the right direction to get games to be more interactve and give control over an story and make it your own. Not every game is the same and the variety is what makes its personal value seem. Games have proven themselves to become a medium which has always strived to become the point between films and life, in which you control the outcomes of situations and go into actual worlds. Games were always mean to evolve and technology allows that to happen. Games can still be games, but it also depends on how good you've become at gaming. Casual games are still games, story driven games are still games, you have to finish it, as simple as that. 

By moving towards films though, games move away from their own identity as a unique art form and therefore lessening the medium's greatest strength. I have no problem with games giving the player control over a story's outcome, but when QTEs take the place of what could and should be playable scenes, and when story is prioritised above gameplay, it's like a car trying to be a boat and ending up as a weird hybrid that works on neither land nor water.

Um...not true at all. If you've seen how powerful games are they are on the verge of having near CG-like graphics in action adventure game. The animation with the power of artistic, story and gameplay direction are making games simulators (just like they were in the old days) of our favorite superheroes, action stars and more. Remember when you played Batman, Action beat em ups back in the day and other various licensed titles? Well obviously they were trying to immitate the movie realm and other areas of the arts like comics. Look at DBZ and Naruto for instance. Those games could've been just like street fighter, but modern technology has allowed for them to play closer to the show. As technology increases we will be truly simulating the worlds weve wanted to be in. You are the gamer and the game is made to be played. If you want old school alone thats you. Games are not like a car being a boat. Games are the true medium that lets you ride the movies (unlike Universal Studios) and take part in the existence of the characters and follow them for 8-12 hour (or more) stories. It's always been that way...most just weren't paying attention. 

Except that prior to the 7th gen gameplay was almost always kept front and centre. Now we get extended QTE sequences or even non-interactive cutscenes where gameplay would have been a better choice. I have nothing against games that follow a cinematic story. But games are just that, games. You play a game, you watch a movie. When the watching takes precedence over the playing, a game has failed to accomplish the core goal of the medium.


QTE's only make sense where technology isnt sophiscated enough to work the animations at a high quality level. Next gen and other gens will pull scale and animation with serious power so in some cases games will be more interactive. For some games QTE is apart of the fabric of what the franchise is all about. Anyway, sooner or later we wont need them and more focus will be put on the gameplay. You play a game, you watch a movie? So wait...When you play MGS, Mass Effect, Uncharted, InFamous, Killzone, Halo 4 or even Gears of War, not once in your mind does it even come up that those would make for pretty interesting movies? Thats the point. Games have already surpassed movies and at this rate movies would not even do them justice. Movies have their place, but immersive games give gamers an escape that movie goers who aren't gamers would never get. Hell...the amount of cinematics in the average game today equals a 90 minute movie. 

QTEs are often used unnecessarily though, where normal gameplay inputs would be better.

And honestly no, I don't really think about movies when I play a game. They're different mediums, each with their own wonderful unique properties, and when you try apply the priorities of one to the other, it detracts from these properties. For instance, if a game puts story ahead of gameplay, then it suffers as a game because gameplay is the central element of the medium.



curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
veritaz said:

It's a blend of both, which is why i said it's a different experience. I think it succeded in what it was setting out to do and it shows in the fans, profit, reviews.

But the problem with playing both sides of the field is that ultimately you have to succeed as one or both. Heavy Rain wouldn't pass the standards expected of good movies, and because it reduces gameplay to a series of QTEs it doesn't win out as a game either. The erosion of gameplay quality in favour of story and visuals, the Hollywoodization of gaming, is already a grave threat to the medium, and Heavy Rain is a game that exemplifies this trend.


Who cares what the standards are the hollywood movies? The game is a push in the right direction to get games to be more interactve and give control over an story and make it your own. Not every game is the same and the variety is what makes its personal value seem. Games have proven themselves to become a medium which has always strived to become the point between films and life, in which you control the outcomes of situations and go into actual worlds. Games were always mean to evolve and technology allows that to happen. Games can still be games, but it also depends on how good you've become at gaming. Casual games are still games, story driven games are still games, you have to finish it, as simple as that. 

By moving towards films though, games move away from their own identity as a unique art form and therefore lessening the medium's greatest strength. I have no problem with games giving the player control over a story's outcome, but when QTEs take the place of what could and should be playable scenes, and when story is prioritised above gameplay, it's like a car trying to be a boat and ending up as a weird hybrid that works on neither land nor water.

Um...not true at all. If you've seen how powerful games are they are on the verge of having near CG-like graphics in action adventure game. The animation with the power of artistic, story and gameplay direction are making games simulators (just like they were in the old days) of our favorite superheroes, action stars and more. Remember when you played Batman, Action beat em ups back in the day and other various licensed titles? Well obviously they were trying to immitate the movie realm and other areas of the arts like comics. Look at DBZ and Naruto for instance. Those games could've been just like street fighter, but modern technology has allowed for them to play closer to the show. As technology increases we will be truly simulating the worlds weve wanted to be in. You are the gamer and the game is made to be played. If you want old school alone thats you. Games are not like a car being a boat. Games are the true medium that lets you ride the movies (unlike Universal Studios) and take part in the existence of the characters and follow them for 8-12 hour (or more) stories. It's always been that way...most just weren't paying attention. 

Except that prior to the 7th gen gameplay was almost always kept front and centre. Now we get extended QTE sequences or even non-interactive cutscenes where gameplay would have been a better choice. I have nothing against games that follow a cinematic story. But games are just that, games. You play a game, you watch a movie. When the watching takes precedence over the playing, a game has failed to accomplish the core goal of the medium.


QTE's only make sense where technology isnt sophiscated enough to work the animations at a high quality level. Next gen and other gens will pull scale and animation with serious power so in some cases games will be more interactive. For some games QTE is apart of the fabric of what the franchise is all about. Anyway, sooner or later we wont need them and more focus will be put on the gameplay. You play a game, you watch a movie? So wait...When you play MGS, Mass Effect, Uncharted, InFamous, Killzone, Halo 4 or even Gears of War, not once in your mind does it even come up that those would make for pretty interesting movies? Thats the point. Games have already surpassed movies and at this rate movies would not even do them justice. Movies have their place, but immersive games give gamers an escape that movie goers who aren't gamers would never get. Hell...the amount of cinematics in the average game today equals a 90 minute movie. 

QTEs are often used unnecessarily though, where normal gameplay inputs would be better.

And honestly no, I don't really think about movies when I play a game. They're different mediums, each with their own wonderful unique properties, and when you try apply the priorities of one to the other, it detracts from these properties. For instance, if a game puts story ahead of gameplay, then it suffers as a game because gameplay is the central element of the medium.


QTE's still test gaming aptitude. You might be of a higher aptitude than the average gamer but I've seen people die in Heavy Rain who don't game and have the muscle memory that comes with years of gaming nor the reflexes. Super Mario in the same way trains reflexes for third party games with more deliberate action. Gaming direction is the artistic decision of the director and games today are huge productions. Heavy Rain is a great experience, and I say experience because I've only lost a QTE like once or twice in it, but thats because I am an experienced gamer and dont consider it a major challenge. Watching my friends try to survive who dont game, it was actually more interesting to me because I go to see what real struggle was like for them.



S.T.A.G.E. said:

QTE's still test gaming aptitude. You might be of a higher aptitude than the average gamer but I've seen people die in Heavy Rain who don't game and have the muscle memory that comes with years of gaming nor the reflexes. Super Mario in the same way trains reflexes for third party games with more deliberate action. Gaming direction is the artistic decision of the director and games today are huge productions. Heavy Rain is a great experience, and I say experience because I've only lost a QTE like once or twice in it, but thats because I am an experienced gamer and dont consider it a major challenge. Watching my friends try to survive who dont game, it was actually more interesting to me because I go to see what real struggle was like for them.

QTEs still test aptitude, yes, but if I have a choice between running along a bridge, jumping over a gap, and shooting a bad guy, I want to play it manually, not tap a few random buttons while the game plays itself.



Heavy Rain was awesome



Around the Network

Well deserved.



Lawlight said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Lawlight said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Lawlight said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Augen said:
So, some dumbed down math here for me.

It sold ~2 million copies
It cost 16.7 to produce and 23.3 to market; total being 40 million Euros
It made more than 100 million Euros
Thus, a profit of at least 60 million Euros on selling ~2 million copies

Stories like this make me wonder how other games struggle to make money in similar situations. This model seems to be very attainable, if this game sold half as much as it did it still would have been profitable, correct? Why do so many developers and publishers struggle nowadays if a million units sold could make money on an expensive title? I am guessing I am missing something here.



Good question. Heavy Rain was also high budget. I doubt most games have a higher budget than it had. However, it's probably on the low end spectrum of the games that do such as CoD and GTA. I'd also like to point out that the people who estimate games to be upwards of 50mil without marketing are absolutely crazy. The games with those types of budgets are far and few between.

So, back to your question. How do game developers who mostly develop low budget games (comparatively) struggle? Hmm... I wonder... Do do do do do do do... do do do do doot do do do do (thats the jepordy song)... Only thing I can think of is maybe multiplats aren't as lucrative as some may think.


Most big games like Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and Mass Effet have a much bigger budget than that.



Those games aren't most games. Theyre on 3 platforms. Provide a quote from someone who would know the budget say the budget because I doubt it would be ridiculously more.

Twesterm (a developer who worked on Ghostbusters) always said majority of games don't sell more than 300k. I'm sure this is probably something he picked up from the industry and being the case most games must need a budget that would break even on those sales.


That's why I said most big games. Have a look at this:

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Most_expensive_video_games

That list is based off purly speculation.

"Again, nothing exact in terms of total budget for MGS4. In fact, even the development length isn’t clear."

I'm sure the budgets are huge (20mil is huge) but honestly I doubt these people really have a clue how much they cost.

I mean... too human 80mil? Don't you think games like that would be cancelled when they start costing above high budget games without the quality of one without a chance in hell of making it back up. I mean, I honestly think whoever compiled the list just looked at dev length (guessed) and guessed at how much they think it should have cost.


Dude, it's well known that Too Human had a massive budget and it flopped terribly. It's not mismanagement of funds within the video games industry is something unheard of. As I said, Heavy Rain's budget seems to be about average for a triple-A game.


Yeah, 20mil is a massive budget. But that list is purely speculation. And the source of that list puts the budget at 60+mil... shows you how much that list is based on speculation. I doubt that when the game started costing upwards of 20mil the solution was to keep throwing money at it. Doom was made  with $300,000 and was considered massive at the time. And too human started being developed a few years after that.



Max King of the Wild said:
Lawlight said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Lawlight said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Lawlight said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Augen said:
So, some dumbed down math here for me.

It sold ~2 million copies
It cost 16.7 to produce and 23.3 to market; total being 40 million Euros
It made more than 100 million Euros
Thus, a profit of at least 60 million Euros on selling ~2 million copies

Stories like this make me wonder how other games struggle to make money in similar situations. This model seems to be very attainable, if this game sold half as much as it did it still would have been profitable, correct? Why do so many developers and publishers struggle nowadays if a million units sold could make money on an expensive title? I am guessing I am missing something here.



Good question. Heavy Rain was also high budget. I doubt most games have a higher budget than it had. However, it's probably on the low end spectrum of the games that do such as CoD and GTA. I'd also like to point out that the people who estimate games to be upwards of 50mil without marketing are absolutely crazy. The games with those types of budgets are far and few between.

So, back to your question. How do game developers who mostly develop low budget games (comparatively) struggle? Hmm... I wonder... Do do do do do do do... do do do do doot do do do do (thats the jepordy song)... Only thing I can think of is maybe multiplats aren't as lucrative as some may think.


Most big games like Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and Mass Effet have a much bigger budget than that.



Those games aren't most games. Theyre on 3 platforms. Provide a quote from someone who would know the budget say the budget because I doubt it would be ridiculously more.

Twesterm (a developer who worked on Ghostbusters) always said majority of games don't sell more than 300k. I'm sure this is probably something he picked up from the industry and being the case most games must need a budget that would break even on those sales.


That's why I said most big games. Have a look at this:

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Most_expensive_video_games

That list is based off purly speculation.

"Again, nothing exact in terms of total budget for MGS4. In fact, even the development length isn’t clear."

I'm sure the budgets are huge (20mil is huge) but honestly I doubt these people really have a clue how much they cost.

I mean... too human 80mil? Don't you think games like that would be cancelled when they start costing above high budget games without the quality of one without a chance in hell of making it back up. I mean, I honestly think whoever compiled the list just looked at dev length (guessed) and guessed at how much they think it should have cost.


Dude, it's well known that Too Human had a massive budget and it flopped terribly. It's not mismanagement of funds within the video games industry is something unheard of. As I said, Heavy Rain's budget seems to be about average for a triple-A game.


Yeah, 20mil is a massive budget. But that list is purely speculation. And the source of that list puts the budget at 60+mil... shows you how much that list is based on speculation. I doubt that when the game started costing upwards of 20mil the solution was to keep throwing money at it. Doom was made  with $300,000 and was considered massive at the time. And too human started being developed a few years after that.

 

Nah, 20M is average for a triple-A game. Even Uncharted 2 was 20M and that was a sequel.