Squilliam said: Kasz216 said: Squilliam said: Kasz216 said: Keep in mind it costs a lot more to run a company then just making back the dev costs of the game. I think that's where people are missing a lot of this. Stuff like... keeping the utlities on, new computers, paying the management and other people not on dev teams who do stuff 9-5.  Janitors, Ad men, CDs, factories that put the games together, manuals, shipping etc.... Advertising is another big one not counted in Dev cost.  That can range up to as much as the game development itself.... So in reality to "Break even" you need to make significantly more then your listed development cost once you figure in all the extra costs of buisness. If you just kept breaking even on games you would eventually go bankrupt.  It'd be slow.... but it'd happen. $100,000 per developer per year is the current complete cost per developer including much of the on site overhead, excluding advertising. Based on...?  Seems rather cheap.   Dividing EAs expected cost savings by the number of developers fired and industry estimates by two seperate developers on WWW.beyond3d.com which both match up about perfectly.

I guess... might have something to do with EA being a bigger company though.

I mean a lot of HD developers seem to be in a hole that Wii developers aren't.

So there has to be something that isn't correct.

 

Kasz216 said: I guess... might have something to do with EA being a bigger company though. I mean a lot of HD developers seem to be in a hole that Wii developers aren't. So there has to be something that isn't correct.

• Advertising budgets have increased substantially.
• Testing budgets have increased substantially with the scope of projects
• Royalties to console manufacturers have increased per disk.
• Many developers have to pay royalties to Epic for UE3 based on total revenue.
• Developers are using more third party tools and contracters for things like AI, Physics, Multi-player etc.
• Publishers are being forced to recreate most of their art assets or they are buying third party I.P. which doesn't directly show up on their game budgets directly.
• After several games companies got sued, Publishers have been forced to increase their legal presence, especially for mature games. Also theres the whole war on piracy thing going on as well.
• You never hear about the games which fail. The games which are scrapped half way done or games which are released and immediately bomb aren't remembered by anyone except the people who made them. Most of the games you or I could name have been profitable, the ones which we don't know of or about are likely a big source of Publisher pain at present.
  

 

Squilliam said: Ail said: Kasz216 said: Squilliam said: $100,000 per developer per year is the current complete cost per developer including much of the on site overhead, excluding advertising. Based on...?  Seems rather cheap.   That sounds about right. Costs per developers are around 150k/year at my company but we don't work in gaming and developers make a lot more than a developer at a gaming company would make ( and I believe our benefits are better too).   Yep! Game developers are in it for the love and not the money!

That's not the only reason.

Pretty much every developer in my company has a PhD in Maths, engineering or Physics...

That's hardly the case at gaming companies.

Average age of a developer here is probably around 38-40 too, it is a lot lower at gaming companies, hence much lower salaries...

 

Ail said: Squilliam said: Ail said: Kasz216 said: Squilliam said: $100,000 per developer per year is the current complete cost per developer including much of the on site overhead, excluding advertising. Based on...?  Seems rather cheap.   That sounds about right. Costs per developers are around 150k/year at my company but we don't work in gaming and developers make a lot more than a developer at a gaming company would make ( and I believe our benefits are better too).   Yep! Game developers are in it for the love and not the money!   That's not the only reason. Pretty much every developer in my company has a PhD in Maths, engineering or Physics... That's hardly the case at gaming companies. Average age of a developer here is probably around 38-40 too, it is a lot lower at gaming companies, hence much lower salaries...

Also I take it you get to leave work on time, and if you want to you could have a wife and child unlike most game developers who are forced to work up to 100 hour weeks at times. Its practically like being away at sea, only the theoretical possibility that you could see your family makes it hurt even more.

 

Ummm......hell yeah. The video game industry would certainly be on the verge of a crash if not for Nintendo.

There were about 170 million consoles sold last generation. The PS3 and 360 will sell 90-100 million between the two of them. That's a 42% drop off, which is a damn shame.

The PS3 and 360 userbases consist almost entirely of core and hardcore gamers. Smaller developers and publishers would be capitulating left and right as they wouldn't have the cash to make the big-budget titles that would be necessary to appeal to this small demographic. The only titles you'd see would be from traditional genres and/or sequels to already popular tried-and-true franchises. Non-traditional titles would be too much of a risk as they wouldn't appeal to the PS3 and 360 userbase. For reference, notice how the only non-traditional game to sell well and not be on the DS or Wii is Little Big Planet.

While I like the DS and am not too fond of the Wii, I have to admit that the video game industry would be in a lot of trouble right now if not for Nintendo. The Japanese market would be in a real shite state of affairs. For the love of god, the best selling console this generation would be the PSP.

Lord N said: Ummm......hell yeah. The video game industry would certainly be on the verge of a crash if not for Nintendo. There were about 170 million consoles sold last generation. The PS3 and 360 will sell 90-100 million between the two of them. That's a 42% drop off, which is a damn shame. The PS3 and 360 userbases consist almost entirely of core and hardcore gamers. Smaller developers and publishers would be capitulating left and right as they wouldn't have the cash to make the big-budget titles that would be necessary to appeal to this small demographic. The only titles you'd see would be from traditional genres and/or sequels to already popular tried-and-true franchises. Non-traditional titles would be too much of a risk as they wouldn't appeal to the PS3 and 360 userbase. For reference, notice how the only non-traditional game to sell well and not be on the DS or Wii is Little Big Planet. While I like the DS and am not too fond of the Wii, I have to admit that the video game industry would be in a lot of trouble right now if not for Nintendo. The Japanese market would be in a real shite state of affairs. For the love of god, the best selling console this generation would be the PSP.

Bold 1: The truth in the statement is absent without good cause. Thats like saying if Toyota wasn't in the market, the car industry would shrink 20%. In reality the take up of those more lifestyle gamers would be slower, but its unlikely that there would be fewer than the previous generation. Just because many people believe that a Wii is a better console than an Xbox 360 doesn't mean that they would be absent from the market.

Bold 2: That statement would only be true if the PS2 didn't exist. If the PS3 was the PS2's 2nd coming then we would not be having this conversation. The truth here, failed to provide a permission slip explaining its absence from school.

 

Squilliam said: Lord N said: Ummm......hell yeah. The video game industry would certainly be on the verge of a crash if not for Nintendo. There were about 170 million consoles sold last generation. The PS3 and 360 will sell 90-100 million between the two of them. That's a 42% drop off, which is a damn shame. The PS3 and 360 userbases consist almost entirely of core and hardcore gamers. Smaller developers and publishers would be capitulating left and right as they wouldn't have the cash to make the big-budget titles that would be necessary to appeal to this small demographic. The only titles you'd see would be from traditional genres and/or sequels to already popular tried-and-true franchises. Non-traditional titles would be too much of a risk as they wouldn't appeal to the PS3 and 360 userbase. For reference, notice how the only non-traditional game to sell well and not be on the DS or Wii is Little Big Planet. While I like the DS and am not too fond of the Wii, I have to admit that the video game industry would be in a lot of trouble right now if not for Nintendo. The Japanese market would be in a real shite state of affairs. For the love of god, the best selling console this generation would be the PSP. Bold 1: The truth in the statement is absent without good cause. Thats like saying if Toyota wasn't in the market, the car industry would shrink 20%. In reality the take up of those more lifestyle gamers would be slower, but its unlikely that there would be fewer than the previous generation. Just because many people believe that a Wii is a better console than an Xbox 360 doesn't mean that they would be absent from the market. Bold 2: That statement would only be true if the PS2 didn't exist. If the PS3 was the PS2's 2nd coming then we would not be having this conversation. The truth here, failed to provide a permission slip explaining its absence from school.

Eh i would of been absent from the market probably.  I was still happy with PS2 games and had lots to still play.

Only reason i have a PS2 is Valkria Chronicles, which i wouldn't of heard about if i wasn't on this site... which i wouldn't of been until I heard the Wii was kicking sales ass and i thought it was impossible since the system sounded stupid.

 

Let's not forget that the Wii is tracking much better than the PS2 at the same point in its life. That means that developers could support exclusively the Wii like they did last generation. Of course, they need the good kind of game.

psrock said: If the solution is so easy, why haven't they switch yet?

Three reasons.

One: Time. Good games tend to take a long time to make; two years or more in some cases. The Wii only just passed the two-year mark, and companies really only started to give it much of a look six months to a year after its release.

Two: Model. Developers have gotten far too used to graphics-are-everything over the past two generations, and you Just Can't Do That on the Wii. It will take time for them to relearn the models under which the best games of all time were made (and some of the worst, too), and the Wii is built to require models like that.

Three: Marketing. Adolescent males pushed everyone else out of gaming a decade ago. Now everyone else is coming back, but companies have forgotten how to market to them, because they simply haven't had to.

Really, it's all about relearning how games were made in the golden age. With that knowledge in hand, though, the gameplay renaissance is set to dawn. It's a good time to be a gamer.

Millennium said: psrock said: If the solution is so easy, why haven't they switch yet? Three reasons. One: Time. Good games tend to take a long time to make; two years or more in some cases. The Wii only just passed the two-year mark, and companies really only started to give it much of a look six months to a year after its release. Two: Model. Developers have gotten far too used to graphics-are-everything over the past two generations, and you Just Can't Do That on the Wii. It will take time for them to relearn the models under which the best games of all time were made (and some of the worst, too), and the Wii is built to require models like that. Three: Marketing. Adolescent males pushed everyone else out of gaming a decade ago. Now everyone else is coming back, but companies have forgotten how to market to them, because they simply haven't had to. Really, it's all about relearning how games were made in the golden age. With that knowledge in hand, though, the gameplay renaissance is set to dawn. It's a good time to be a gamer.

Yawn... Wake me up when theres a reality check on the bolded. If more gamers were playing than ever before in the 5th, 6th and 7th generations then obviously we've been in the golden age and had never left it.