Study: Average dev costs as high as $28m

[Acert93]

I have a good friend working at IO and he said it was a pretty nice hit, too.

Did he indicate what their budgets were?

Looking at charting it didn't chart on NPD in November 2007. This puts launch month sales sub-380k units. Based on the Metacritic score of 6.5 it doesn't look like it was doing anything to compel consumers post launch.

If this title was a "pretty nice hit" doesn't it argue against the issues in the Original Post? If games with ~ 400K sales domestic (750K WW, who knows how many of those at sub-$60) are a success then what is the problem?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

AFAIK it sold well over a million (hence the sequel). Don't forget that it was a multiplatform title.

 

[JPT]

And how I'd love to know the budget for Kane & Lynch

 

[Silent_Buddha]

One other thing, is that people can't focus solely on the devs with regards to ever increasing budgets.

In a market where some games get huge knocks against them for "sub par" graphics (whatever that means), and the word of mouth associated with that...

Devs are just futher encouraged by the buying public (at least with regards to the "hardcore" gamer) to push big time graphical bling. Which costs money. And time (which again is money).

Just take a look at your premium example of a "fast" developement platform UE3.

Now look at some comments about gamse using it. Most comments panning the graphics and wishing companies would use something different and push more graphical features.

So what's a dev to do? Use the cheaper option and get dinged for having the same level of graphics and features as other games using that engine? Or spend major resources modifying said engine/creating their own engine?

Sure we can point to CryEngine 3 as a future option that will bring ease of developement (hopefully) and easier cross platform dev similar to UE3, but after X many games have used it and start looking the same or similar, we'll again have complaints about the graphics being too similar, blah blah.

Devs pushing the envelope will raise consumer expections, which then expect more pushing devs to do more, which then raises consumer expectations, which then...you get the point.

Now toss in people that want all of the above but don't want to pay for it because it's "too expensive" and we've got this no win situation for the majority of devs that consumers want more but don't want to pay for more. And added to that the people still willing to pay for games, won't pay for it unless you give them more (which costs more to make).

Or you basically say F-U to that segment of the market and target families and kids (Wii games).

Which begs the question. How many of you would support a stop to graphical IQ developement in an attempt to bring dev costs under control?

Regards,
SB

 

[JPT]

Which begs the question. How many of you would support a stop to graphical IQ developement in an attempt to bring dev costs under control?

Why should I support anything, except for the supporting I do with my wallet?
Is this not the definition of supply and demand?
Is it really my problem that the industry does not make any sense economically?

Looking at my own gaming, and I just tipped closer to 40 than 30, I spend most of my time playing PSN titles, except for the occasional AAA title ala U2 etc.

Last game I bought was an "indie" title for the PC http://machinarium.net/ and the reason for that was because I wanted to play another point and click adventure AND it runs on Linux

Now, I do not claim that my taste/views make up the major demographic when it comes to gaming, but with games as anything else in technology we are rapidly moving towards commodity products. People get overloaded so either you hit it out of the park with your amibitions. Or you make a commodity game which is cheap and taps into the good/fun enough market and make your cash there.

 

[obonicus]

AFAIK it sold well over a million (hence the sequel). Don't forget that it was a multiplatform title.

I don't know if sequel means much, by itself, but then IO has other more critically-successful IP. The stories I'd heard was that K&L was sort of a low-profile game, a bit like Freedom Fighters that Eidos blew out of proportion.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Yeah, pretty much in line with that I've heard.
Moderate budget + sales over a million units -> nice hit.

And also a supposed movie adaptation with Bruce Willis

 

[ban25]

Anyone know the average development costs for PS2 / Xbox for comparison purposes?

Generally $5-10M.

 

[zed]

WRT crytek

Much good can be said about their high-end rendering features, but they are by no means a paragon of rapid, nimble development.

yes of the 4 'well known' engines, rendering qualitywise it goes
crytek->id->epic->source
yet in number of titles it nearly the opposite
epic->source then id then crytek

I remember asking cervat CEO of crytek (nice guy btw) back in 2003 what they had lined up WRT business wise + he assured me 'heaps of good stuff' looks like it didnt pan out yet, pity, I guess theres a grain in the saying 'nice guys finish last'. You can have the best tech in the world but without marketting its pfffft

 

[NRP]

Which begs the question. How many of you would support a stop to graphical IQ developement in an attempt to bring dev costs under control?

I'd sooner support another increase in retail game price. I have some idea how expensive it is to make something, so I realize this is probably necessary.

Besides, stopping technological development would never work anyway. Devs are a creative lot. If you force them into standardized boilerplate/"cookie cutter" development, most of the good ones will just do something else, and the overall industry will be worse for it.

 

[Squilliam]

I'd sooner support another increase in retail game price. I have some idea how expensive it is to make something, so I realize this is probably necessary.

Besides, stopping technological development would never work anyway. Devs are a creative lot. If you force them into standardized boilerplate/"cookie cutter" development, most of the good ones will just do something else, and the overall industry will be worse for it.

Any increase in the price of games would pretty much only serve to make the developers of the AAA games and/or 'best' games from a market perspective better off whilst making everyone else worse off. The cheaper something is the less picky people are about getting the content and on the other hand the more expensive something is the more picky people are, and if they restrict their purchases it won't be fewer Call Of Duty or Halo titles bought, it will be fewer titles like Borderlands or Left 4 Dead which get bought.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

WRT crytek

yes of the 4 'well known' engines, rendering qualitywise it goes
crytek->id->epic->source
yet in number of titles it nearly the opposite
epic->source then id then crytek

I remember asking cervat CEO of crytek (nice guy btw) back in 2003 what they had lined up WRT business wise + he assured me 'heaps of good stuff' looks like it didnt pan out yet, pity, I guess theres a grain in the saying 'nice guys finish last'. You can have the best tech in the world but without marketting its pfffft

Granted it's all personal option but out of the released engines thus far, I'd go...

CE2 -> UE3 -> Idtech 4 (Rage is on 5 right?) - > Source

Idtech 4 isn't really much competition for UE3 rendering wise IMO. It'll be interesting to see if Unigine can gain any traction and what it is capable of when used in an actual game. Likewise there's another often used engine that I can't remember the name of...sigh.

Regards,
SB

 

[ban25]

I'd sooner support another increase in retail game price. I have some idea how expensive it is to make something, so I realize this is probably necessary.

Besides, stopping technological development would never work anyway. Devs are a creative lot. If you force them into standardized boilerplate/"cookie cutter" development, most of the good ones will just do something else, and the overall industry will be worse for it.

Well, there's technology and then there's asset production, and that's ultimately gated by time and money.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

What's even more scary is that 18 studios were closed and 11,500 jobs cut.

But all the average user sees is that MW2 has made $500 million and extrapolates that all publishers are evil and games are still too expensive at $60... meh.

Higher game pricing would have actually led to much BIGGER job cuts and more studios being closed down

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I feel one problem is there are just too many games. We talk about a tiny handful here on B3D, and the same goes for most gamers. Yet there are thousands of titles produced. Who here knows even 10% of the titles released on PS2?! Most titles just aren't going to sell, which means spending money on them is pointless. Better save it and spend it on blockbusters that cost more to make but will have better returns.

Of course, quite how one determines which games are worth making, I don't think anyone knows...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Higher game pricing would have actually led to much BIGGER job cuts and more studios being closed down

It may or may not, but reality is that at some point prices will HAVE to go up or AAA titles will die and we'll have to live with pop-cap/stardock/XBLA style games with low budgets and compromises either in quality or storyline.

Heck look at novels. I paid 1.99 USD for newly released paperbacks in the 80's. I paid 50-60 USD for computer games in the 80's.

Now, I pay 7.99+ for a newly released paperback. And computer games are still 50-60 USD.

Every year that passes computer games (and console games) get cheaper and cheaper to purchase while developement costs continue to rise. Meanwhile all other forms of entertainment go up in costs either matching or exceeding the inflation rate.

Regards,
SB

 

[dobwal]

It may or may not, but reality is that at some point prices will HAVE to go up or AAA titles will die and we'll have to live with pop-cap/stardock/XBLA style games with low budgets and compromises either in quality or storyline.

Heck look at novels. I paid 1.99 USD for newly released paperbacks in the 80's. I paid 50-60 USD for computer games in the 80's.

Now, I pay 7.99+ for a newly released paperback. And computer games are still 50-60 USD.

Every year that passes computer games (and console games) get cheaper and cheaper to purchase while developement costs continue to rise. Meanwhile all other forms of entertainment go up in costs either matching or exceeding the inflation rate.

Regards,
SB

Retail prices haven't kept pace with inflation because the gaming market has grown a pretty good clip over the last 30 years while dynamics such a pubs/devs revenue per unit sale has grown. The potential windfall of a third party title is much bigger now. A third party game producing 500 million in sales didn't happen in the 80s but has happen a number of times in the last decade.

What hasn't change much other than price is the structure of your typical dev house. In my opinion the landscape needs restructuring. I think there should be more high specialized developers. Developers that don't makes games but specialized in art assets, engine coding, animations or other aspect of gaming. These specialized companies wouldn't be tied to any one franchise or group of IPs and the success or failure of those titles but able to solicit business from any pub or game developer and cheaper costs.

Developement costs would go down as well as risk with the negative being probably a smaller pool of programmers and artists needed to maintain such a model but with caveat that game developers would have better access to the talent accross the board.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It may or may not, but reality is that at some point prices will HAVE to go up or AAA titles will die and we'll have to live with pop-cap/stardock/XBLA style games with low budgets and compromises either in quality or storyline.

Lets say you increase price to 100usd per game. People are obviously gonna buy LESS games than before. Sales would go down, amount of studios would go down, and amount of jobs lost would go up.

Less games bought => more games competiting for the same $100 -> fewer successfull titles -> more studios going bankcrupt and more jobs loss.

Games developing is a risky business, raising the game price will only increase the volatility.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Lets say you increase price to 100usd per game. People are obviously gonna buy LESS games than before. Sales would go down, amount of studios would go down, and amount of jobs lost would go up.

Less games bought => more games competiting for the same $100 -> fewer successfull titles -> more studios going bankcrupt and more jobs loss.

Games developing is a risky business, raising the game price will only increase the volatility.

That's entirely possible. But the other possibility is going to be a definite reality at some point. That at the current price points it will eventually become unprofitable to make any AAA games even with the occasional blockbuster allowing you to subsidize less successful games.

So in the one case you may end up losing. In the other case you will end up losing.

Developement costs are now rising at a much faster clip than the market is expanding. Something that's a bit opposite of what was happening during the 80's, 90's and probably the earlier half of the 00's.

Additionally, publishers no longer have the ability to cut packaging costs as they did during the 90's and early 00's. Boxes? Pretty much gone. Instruction books? Already eliminted for cost cutting. Maps? Ditto.

There aren't any area's left to cut costs other than to either 1. cut developement funding or 2. raise prices or 3 move entirely to digital distribution which will just extend the timeframe until you are back to 1 and 2.

Interestingly collectors editions now STILL contain less "stuff" than standard editions did in the 90's.

Regards,
SB

 

[assen]

The price isn't going to go up, like everything that was $60 is $100 now.

But we'll see more and more price segmentation: the phenomenon where essentially the same product, with a different configuration of bells and whistles, is offered to the market in widely varying prices, so that consumers can pick their preferred price points. The best explanation I've seen is here:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html

In games, this means the barebones game will still sell for $40-60, but we'll see more and more collector's editions, free-with-first-purchase DLC, plain DLC, premium subscription content etc. - bringing the average cost a gamer pays up.

Did somebody calculate that the total price for all downloadable cars in GT5 would come to something like $700?