So it appears to me that a larger and larger number of games are getting enormous graphical upgrades, Marketing, and what goes with those 2, budgets.  Or to quote Yahtzee "Having top of the line hardware creates the unspoken requirement to have top of the line graphics which makes production time and costs several months and several million dollars on the side of uncomfortable".

This is becomming the norm, not the exception it appears. Originally, few games but the big, giant, this is our Flagship games had enormous budgets (GTA San Andreas I've heard quoted at 50 million, but that seems extravagently high). Yet more and more games are taking more time, resources and money to create these fantastic looking games.

Is this a good thing? Higher cost to enter the market? Independant Developers looking for entry no longer need 500 bucks and a decent amount of programming skill and an artist, they now appear to need millions of dollars of backing from a publisher or one of the three giants. The risk is getting greater, but the reward, particularily at the start of this generation, is less and less.

I don't think it's hard to understand that a game, spent in development for 2 years with millions of dollars in investment, that didn't recoup any money, is a bad thing. Few investors believe Video Games to be enough of an Art to support it like they would say, a conceptual artist who turned on faucets full blast in random locations to protest a water shortage (Yes, someone did that, and someone probably gave him money for it). So, just as a weird thought, with it costing more and more to get in, will things become dominated by Major Publishers, with small companies forced to work on the (Presumably) cheaper Wii, or relegated to PSN and X-Box Arcade downloads for a fraction of the return and a smaller audience?

If so, if fewer developers can enter the market because of the increase cost to make these amazing looking games, if the risk is much higher and the reward currently much lower... Can I say that the PS3 and Xbox360 are hurting gaming? Will it get worse, or in 2 years will this be a non issue?

After all, Bioshock had a hell of a time getting a publisher, and it turned out fantastic(Allegedly, havn't played), but maybe if they applied 6 months later with some areas not seeing returns that investors want for that much investment, would we have been deprived of the Ability to Smack Big Daddies with Wrenches?

*Note: I threw in the hurting gaming line just because so many people liked saying that Nintendo is hurting gaming. In reality, I am curious about other people's takes on sales, and the current cost of entering the market. I just felt like being an asshole.

One guy made everyday shooter for PSN.

Calling all cars cost 1 mill took a bit over a year.

Killzone2 is rumored 20/40 million.

Interesting Points? I can't tell if you disagree it's not a good trend that games are generally costing more and taking more time for less reward or not. Plus since I work in 5 hours, I probably should get sleep.

The rising costs = some guy making the budget, some guy oking the budget.

The whole you need millions to enter is BS, you want to enter make a PSn or xbox arcade title.

Fuzzmosis - Studios have needed publishers for awhile in the console world. Games are like many other forms of commodity entertainment. In ways very similar to films the video game industry is driven by sequels. Sequels seem to be about bigger is better and thus, bloat. Sequels often, and if long lived somewhat paradoxically eventually, follow a downward trend artistically. There's some interesting questions there, thanks for writing it all down.

It is a good thing because games are more likely to be high quality if they cost so much more to make. Well-run companies are not going to pour enormous amounts of money into lousy games for the most part. And all those lousy cheap games that try to cash in will really get punished by consumers since the difference will be so big and noticeable.

As far as cost to enter the market and independent developers, those things are actually *improving* because of XBLA and PSN.

 Correct, and if your talking about Wii games as ports then your right! 8)

I think another problem is the pricing of the final product.
Games that are low in development cost should be (allowed) to be priced lower.
What sort of regulations are there for pricing the games?

That way, you have a choice to buy cheaper games at lower quality or stick with the high priced high quality games. Just like other products such as clothing, wines, etc...

I definitely don't agree on games being all at the same price.

Also, a console game should not need a patch. That's what computer games are for. Maybe I've been under a rock or something but I tend to see games being released with bugs more often nowadays than before. There was a time when you can just buy your console and game and there's no such thing as firmware updates. Every game works exactly the way it is out of the box without having to update anything.

At this rate, console gaming is going to be like that of PC. Release a half assed game and patch it after release. More than once.

Agreed, and plenty of games that bombed would have done much better if they were $10-20 less.

I don't agree about patches. There may be valid criticisms, but it's infinitely better than not having patches.

(Got A ride to work)

And you certainly can start on Xbox Live or PSN, but in those cases, you're going for 7 bucks, not 30, you're at only 60% of the audience, and maxed out at around 500k buys or so. Pretty inviting. Plus what if your game is a bit deeper than what they'd allow?