Cost of open world games vs linear games?

[ZebMacahan]

Which is generally easier and cheaper to produce, a traditional Halo game with around 10 unique levels (plus minus 1-3), good designed combat areas and set pieces (halo 3 level quality but grafical fidelity needs to higher of course), or an open world shooter?
In case of linear game different bioms, open world game can be in kinda same biom, but with some variation (beaches, djungle, mointains).

 

[Riddlewire]

I don't think there's a fixed answer to this.
What matters is how much work a development team chooses to put into their particular project. Either one could be more or less complicated than the other. Owing not only to the chosen level of world/level detail and complexity, but also due to the workflow procedures put in place at a given studio. Factor in the asset production pipeline and the game engine characteristics (iteration speed, ease of bug tracking, etc.) and there are just too many variables to make this a question that can be definitively answered.

 

[iroboto]

linear titles are simpler. Cost is determinant on the amount you're willing to spend on the project, but a 300M on a linear vs 300M on an open world, the linear should look better.

 

[fehu]

Open worlds have a lot of linear handcrafted sections too.

 

[Seanspeed]

linear titles are simpler. Cost is determinant on the amount you're willing to spend on the project, but a 300M on a linear vs 300M on an open world, the linear should look better.

Linear games are simpler in some ways, but not necessarily others. Doing just one hour of scripted, linear gameplay can be an immense amount of work. You need to constantly provide players with something new and interesting to experience.

I would say that with modern tools, open world games are not actually harder to make than linear games anymore. They're still not easy to do well, but just making the choice of linear vs open is not an inherent case of cost/complexity like it used to be. Tons of small teams are making open world games nowadays.

 

[techuse]

Given a hypothetical equal production quality, open world games cost a lot more. There is just so much more content that needs to be created and polished. In practice though, open world games aren't anywhere near the production quality and therefor tend to cost the same. Rockstar games being the exception. Their open world games actually come somewhat close to linear games.

 

[iroboto]

Linear games are simpler in some ways, but not necessarily others. Doing just one hour of scripted, linear gameplay can be an immense amount of work. You need to constantly provide players with something new and interesting to experience.

I would say that with modern tools, open world games are not actually harder to make than linear games anymore. They're still not easy to do well, but just making the choice of linear vs open is not an inherent case of cost/complexity like it used to be. Tons of small teams are making open world games nowadays.

As Per Techuse's commentary.
Linear games are simpler, because there is less variability, and less player control over what is about to happen, so you can ratchet up on production quality.
Open world games, have tons of variability, and often the same spaces are used over and over again, to redeem the cost of even building it out there in the first place. And so a lot more work is put into building the content of the game, and the production costs are often less in the same space of game area.

 

[Seanspeed]

As Per Techuse's commentary.
Linear games are simpler, because there is less variability, and less player control over what is about to happen, so you can ratchet up on production quality.
Open world games, have tons of variability, and often the same spaces are used over and over again, to redeem the cost of even building it out there in the first place. And so a lot more work is put into building the content of the game, and the production costs are often less in the same space of game area.

Again, that's one area where they are simpler. But there are more areas of game development than just this.

It's extraordinarily hard to make a high production value, 10-15 hour linear game where you need to keep introducing new and interesting things to the player every few minutes. We're numbed to it nowadays, but an hour is actually a fairly long period of time. 10-15+ hours is an insane amount of work that comes with its own complexities in terms of development process and the numbers of people you need working on 'x' and 'y' and a million other little things.

 

[ZebMacahan]

Linear games are simpler in some ways, but not necessarily others. Doing just one hour of scripted, linear gameplay can be an immense amount of work. You need to constantly provide players with something new and interesting to experience.

I would say that with modern tools, open world games are not actually harder to make than linear games anymore. They're still not easy to do well, but just making the choice of linear vs open is not an inherent case of cost/complexity like it used to be. Tons of small teams are making open world games nowadays.

I would guess a game like Uncharted is heavily scripted, but something like Halo 3 I would assume is much less scripted. How hard is it to nail that core combat gameplay loop and build a linear game around that, like Halo 3, than a typical more cinematic game like uncharted?

 

[QPlayer]

I would guess a game like Uncharted is heavily scripted, but something like Halo 3 I would assume is much less scripted. How hard is it to nail that core combat gameplay loop and build a linear game around that, like Halo 3, than a typical more cinematic game like uncharted?

https://i.giphy.com/PJoLp4gDIqjYs.webp

 

[Nesh]

I dont think it's matter of linear or open world but rather the amount and quality of content required to provide a certain quality experience

GoW Ragnarok cost $200m (unsure if it includes marketing but it is reported as the cost to make) whereas Cyberpunk cost $174m until now excluding marketing costs.

Uncharted 4 on the other hand is estimated at around $50m.

TLOU2 is also estimated at around $220m.

RDR2 is estimated something between $370-$540m including marketing costs, so it is also in similar budgets.

Scripted sections don't necessarily make games cheaper. They can actually be extremely costly and time consuming to make depending on the scene. For example Spiderman's scripted sections, I assure you required extreme amount of planning and work.

 

[Seanspeed]

I would guess a game like Uncharted is heavily scripted, but something like Halo 3 I would assume is much less scripted. How hard is it to nail that core combat gameplay loop and build a linear game around that, like Halo 3, than a typical more cinematic game like uncharted?

Well I'd argue that the less 'scripted' a game is, the more open it is by default. So it's still kind of the same argument, just without the more black and white 'linear vs open world' dichotomy.

But I get what you're saying. I just think that really, when it comes down to it, there's huge challenges whichever direction you pick, especially when trying to do it at a AAA level.

I'd say you're probably right that the most cost-efficient option would ideally be a linear game with a focus less on cinematic or scripted aspects and more on gameplay-driven systems and design, yet still have AAA presentation aspects. But I think immersive sims are a good example of a genre that has largely done just that and not succeeding commercially, cuz without all the scripted segments, they're just harder to market. So publishers are less likely to give such pitches the greenlight or at least not a giant sum of money to give it a go.

I dunno. It's just messy and I dont think there's any easy answers here. If you're a decently large studio, whatever option you ultimately go with, it's gonna be difficult and costly. So probably go with something your studio is good at, dont bite off more than you can chew, and ensure you've got some kind of hook you can sell within the span of a 60 second trailer.