Nintendo Wii game development for top titles not as cheap as expected?

[thenefariousone]

According to this article, Red Steel is going to cost at least 10 million Euros to develop.

The article did mention that other developers expect to spend half that amount. One can also not disregard the fact that Red Steel could be an exception to the rule, or creative accounting.

However - if it's going to cost at least 10 million Euros get a major title done on the platform (presumably to get the graphics comparable to xbox 360 or ps3), then it's no longer as cheap to develop for as expected.

Graphics are still a big part of selling a game, and if a developer has to invest additional resources for that reason, then some might decide to avoid the additional expense and move to a different platform.

Any ideas what it costs to develop games on various platforms: xbox, ps2, xbox360?

 

[archie4oz]

There were PS1 games that cost more than that during development... I always find it amusing how folks somehow think a low-cost, lower specc'd machine somehow is going to make games significantly cheaper to develop...

 

[Nesh]

There were PS1 games that cost more than that during development... I always find it amusing how folks somehow think a low-cost, lower specc'd machine somehow is going to make games significantly cheaper to develop...

When?

When the PS1 was still new?

Anyways I think the high dev cost will be highly temporary.

 

[thundermonkey]

Ummmm, what?

Put it in perspective guys.

This game started development roughly a year and a half ago. Starting from pretty much scratch, and a game this size, this scope (big story) to finish it off for launch, you've gotta have a lot of people dedicated to it, no matter the specs of the hardware.

This is the duh part of my post.

 

[Bobbler]

When?

When the PS1 was still new?

Anyways I think the high dev cost will be highly temporary.

I think FF7, FF8, and FF9 all did quite easily. Can't think of any other games, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a few more.

 

[fearsomepirate]

It's an AAA title. According to this old article, typical games cost from 5 to 7 million dollars to develop back in 2003, with some costing even more (Enter the Matrix cost $20m). So it's no surprise that an AAA title would cost EUR 10m, in fact, that's pretty reasonable, and kinda lowball compared to what some AAA titles cost last gen.

 

[Nesh]

I think FF7, FF8, and FF9 all did quite easily. Can't think of any other games, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a few more.

The comparisson is unfair I think.

First because of the nature of these games. Secondly because PS1 wasnt as old. Ofcourse adjusting to inflation and the complexity of today's games may be a good and fair explanation of the game's high cost

 

[Powderkeg]

The comparisson is unfair I think.

First because of the nature of these games. Secondly because PS1 wasnt as old. Ofcourse adjusting to inflation and the complexity of today's games may be a good and fair explanation of the game's high cost

Would you consider Metal Geat Solid an unfair comparison?

 

[Nesh]

Would you consider Metal Geat Solid an unfair comparison?

A game that was in development since 1996 if not earlier when PS1 was still new??

 

[Skrying]

Cost is highly related to the art side of the project, that is where the great majority of it comes from. That's the reason why higher spec'd machines getting pointed out with a higher cost, because you generally go for higher quality art assets and that takes longer and therefore more money.

The Wii isnt going for HD resolutions, so the art is cheaper to make.

That does not mean everything else wont be equal, just the art really is going to be a lot cheaper on the system.

A huge game on the Wii is still going to cost a lot, especially if it goes for a long of unique objects and locations throughout the game.

 

[Powderkeg]

A game that was in development since 1996 if not earlier when PS1 was still new??

Actually the PS1 was out in 1994, so it was already 2 years old which meant development for the system should have been a little cheaper than if it were close to the systems launch.

 

[OtakingGX]

First because of the nature of these games. Secondly because PS1 wasnt as old. Ofcourse adjusting to inflation and the complexity of today's games may be a good and fair explanation of the game's high cost

Don't forget that the game is being developed in France, where the work week is 35 hours and employees get eight weeks of vacation per year. Here in the US a full week is considered 40 hours, though lately most Americans will put in closer to 45 hours at a full-time job. You also get two weeks of vacation your first year, and a week or so for every year with a company, up to four weeks. Also, from what I've heard, some of the bigger US developers had been forcing their employees to work a lot of overtime for no extra pay (gotta love that salary).

I'm sure these factors also have an effect on the cost of making the game, to some extent.

 

[StefanS]

Just a few points

I remember, archieoz (I think it was him) saying that the biggest cost factor in developing was the payroll. The artist, programmers, animators, etc. you need the higher you're cost will be. Wii will allegdly be easier to program, since it has the GCN legacy and its requirement on the art assets will be less strict. This would reduce costs a little.

Moreover, a lot of games already reached the 50million dollar mark this generation without HD resolution, enhanced animations, etc. Here what ERP and John Carmack said

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31189&page=2#36

Salary. Many games use over 100 people now, and fully burdened costs are near $100k each (higher at id, rather lower in other places). Burning $10M a year is easy. Burning four years on a game is not that hard. Add in other costs, and you can hit $50M. I don't think the game that hits $100M is in production yet, but it will certainly happen within a decade.

Id isn't going to spend $50M on a game soon, but others in the market will.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31189#21

There are a number of games in the 50 million range.

WOW is rumoured to have been "over 50 million" and a lot over 50 million by some, you have to remember when they spent that money Everquest was their only judge of the market place and it was under 500K subscribers, takes a lot of balls to spend that amount of money in the PC space.

I predict we'll see a 100million dollar game by the end of this console hardware cycle (possibly a lot sooner), it'll likely be a sequel to a major franchise or a major film license, and it'll be done internally by one of the major publishers.

E.g. GT4 supposedly cost 100 million to make.


While 10 million EUR sounds very costy, it is not that expensive. The only question is, if RedSteel is an AAA and thus representative of Wii' lower dev costs or not.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How much profit do megabucks games make? If the publisher makes $30 per copy sold, to recover $100 million would need to be a multi-million best-seller. something like DQ or Halo could afford that and expect the sales. On the whole most games have to be a lot cheaper to produce than $many millions, because most games don't sell loads. The Japanese charts shows most titles in the top 100 selling less than 300,000. If there is to be an increase in game development costs, there will need to be an increase in game sales, otherwise these companies will lose money. Which would necessitate less games overall so the consumer dollars aren't spread too thin. Is that what we're looking at, less games? Or will the developers keep the costs down deliberately within the limits of the returns they can expect to make? It's all very well saying PS3 and XB360 will cost $30+ million to write for, but if games don't make that much in returns, you'd be a chump to spend that much!

 

[one]

Is that what we're looking at, less games?

On the other hand, hardcore gamers will drop more money for episodic games, download items, T-shirts, and whatnot.

 

[Nesh]

Actually the PS1 was out in 1994, so it was already 2 years old which meant development for the system should have been a little cheaper than if it were close to the systems launch.

Thats not as old as a 6 year old hardware, and also 3D gaming was newer back then. And still it was being made for more than 2 years.

But regardless I wonder whats the point opf discussing this since I already stated this high cost is very temporary and also find it completely natural

Don't forget that the game is being developed in France, where the work week is 35 hours and employees get eight weeks of vacation per year. Here in the US a full week is considered 40 hours, though lately most Americans will put in closer to 45 hours at a full-time job. You also get two weeks of vacation your first year, and a week or so for every year with a company, up to four weeks. Also, from what I've heard, some of the bigger US developers had been forcing their employees to work a lot of overtime for no extra pay (gotta love that salary).

I'm sure these factors also have an effect on the cost of making the game, to some extent.

Probably. Anyways I think its justifiable that the cost is high for now and I see no reason of worry.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

On the other hand, hardcore gamers will drop more money for episodic games, download items, T-shirts, and whatnot.

Is that something development costs are likely to factor in, or 'icing on the cake'? eg. You have a game in development, just starting out, and you predict 500,000 sales at $30 per unit. Do you cap expenditure at $15 million (or less) or do you add in another $15 per gamer for downloaded content and alow yourself $20 million development expenses? I would have thought extra content income is very unpredicatable and financiers wouldn't rely on it for setting budgets.

 

[OtakingGX]

Is that something development costs are likely to factor in, or 'icing on the cake'? eg. You have a game in development, just starting out, and you predict 500,000 sales at $30 per unit. Do you cap expenditure at $15 million (or less) or do you add in another $15 per gamer for downloaded content and alow yourself $20 million development expenses? I would have thought extra content income is very unpredicatable and financiers wouldn't rely on it for setting budgets.

I would not rely on downloadable content as any sort of revenue stream, and I'm sure most sane publishers would do the same.

Monthly charges to play, however, might work a bit differently. Blizzard knew that players would be paying $15 a month to play their game. They even put together some packages to entice you into playing longer. Of course, much of the money from monthly subscriptions is intended for patches and game servers. As WoW approaches nearly 6 million subscribers, though, I doubt Blizzard's monthly expenses are anywhere near $90 million.

If we assume, as before, $30 net per game sold, you'd need to sell 333,000 copies of a game to recoup a $10 million development. This, of course, is a simple "payback period." If we assume that most of the money for development is laid out a year before release and it takes a year and a half to sell all necessary copies, then at the end of that time the net present value of the development (with 7% discount rate) is $11.8 million, and the number of copies to be sold is closer to 400,000. If the company wants to make a profit, generally about 8%, they'll need to sell 430,000 copies of the game.

Of course, the bigger development houses don't see things this way. They just crank out games and cover up the losses incurred from games that sell poorly with the profits made on blockbuster titles.

 

[Magnum PI]

Don't forget that the game is being developed in France, where the work week is 35 hours and employees get eight weeks of vacation per year.

five weeks of vacation, not eight.

Here in the US a full week is considered 40 hours, though lately most Americans will put in closer to 45 hours at a full-time job. You also get two weeks of vacation your first year, and a week or so for every year with a company, up to four weeks.

in your first year with a new employer you get no vacation at all.

Also, from what I've heard, some of the bigger US developers had been forcing their employees to work a lot of overtime for no extra pay (gotta love that salary).

while the legal worktime is 35 hours / week, in the private sector overtime with no pay is very frequent, escpecially in computer-related jojbs.

I'm sure these factors also have an effect on the cost of making the game, to some extent.

it's more a problem of labour charges which are very high than a productivity problem.

there is a lot of employes in the public sector, and their burden on the economy is very important.

 

[OtakingGX]

five weeks of vacation, not eight.

in your first year with a new employer you get no vacation at all.

Well crap, I guess there go my plans of vacationing this year...

I think two weeks your first year is pretty standard for US companies. You won't start with those two weeks, though, you'll have accrued them by the end of the year.

In France, the legally required time off for employees is 5 weeks. In the US, the equivalent is zero weeks. In practice, obviously, employees in both countries get more time off. I got the 8 week figure for France from this article on CBSNews.

Speaking of compensation and benefits though, it looks like we may be seeing a hike in minimum wage in the US soon. $5.15 an hour is not something you can live on.