What's the average development cost for next generation?

GTA4 has several hours of licensed music. They also have a cast of several dozen characters with a lot of voice, although it's not that far beyond other games.

So what?

Licenced music from not so very known actors can hardly account for much costs, neither will hiring 12-40 unknown actors to record voice.
 
But it's the way to keep niche genres (like RPGs that aren't Final Fantasy) going. And I'm not sure how healthy the western ideal of trying for a home run every time is.

Yeah, I understand you very well and agree with your sentiment - I make my living as a game developer in a niche genre, making games for several orders of magnitude less than the numbers discussed.

However, I wanted to point out that the Japanese kept their budgets in check by sacrificing their standing in the market, not out of some miraculous know-how.
 
However, I wanted to point out that the Japanese kept their budgets in check by sacrificing their standing in the market, not out of some miraculous know-how.

Oh, I wasn't implying that (though maybe the OP was). And mostly I was talking about truly niche companies, like GUST or Idea Factory or Nippon Ichi, which were never huge in the market anyway.
 
$20m-$250m Average cost of next gen development 2011-2016.

Only the mega publishers shall survive in this environment.

SEGA SAMMY
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
ELECTRONIC ARTS

I can see Capcom and Konami merging. Ubisoft, Take 2 and THQ shall require mergers also.

$250 million? Are you insane? That's $50 million more than what it cost to film Terminator Salvation.
 
$20m-$250m Average cost of next gen development 2011-2016.

Only the mega publishers shall survive in this environment.

SEGA SAMMY
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
ELECTRONIC ARTS

I can see Capcom and Konami merging. Ubisoft, Take 2 and THQ shall require mergers also.
Ubisoft and Capcom won't survive alone yet Sega will?

I don't think costs will rise dramatically. Metal Gear Solid 2 cost around $10 million to make. Ghostbusters cost $15-20 million but that game had licensing and high profile voice actors. And then there's inflation.
 
Not as much as people seem to think.

A middleware boom with solutions made by multiple providers, from Crytek to Ready at Dawn, will also have a lot to say about development time and cost.
 
I still don't get the big deal.

Plan for trilogys and spread costs over 3 titles. Reuse assets and continue with it . You can make 3 games like this for a much smaller cost than even 2 titles in which you need to remake assets each time.
 
I still don't get the big deal.

Plan for trilogys and spread costs over 3 titles. Reuse assets and continue with it . You can make 3 games like this for a much smaller cost than even 2 titles in which you need to remake assets each time.

It's hard enough to get a publisher to commit to finishing one game yet alone 3! But in general I agree with your point. The shamefull waste I see in games development is hurting us.

Take a story based game: uncharted, gears, and the HL2 episodes are the best example:

When I finish a great story game, I just want the story to continue. At this point I have invested in the story and don't care about the tech. So why do so many companies suddenly plan more tech? I really don't get it.

Ok sure there may be a new mechanic required for story telling, but do we really need to rewrite the camera system, and don't get me started how many times I see trigger boxes rewritten.
 
Most games don't even get to part 2... And even if you're lucky there, you still can't delay return of investment for 3 projects. That's 6 years even with a killing schedule!

Not to mention that assets have to be remade to keep up with the fresh competition. Both Gears 2 and Uncharted 2 have significantly reworked returning characters, in some cases to the extreme. In Gears the Brumak and some other monster were completely re-done, although it was partially because the player was allowed to ride them and get the camera closer. But even Drake got some more polygons and completely re-done textures and shaders.
 
Take a story based game: uncharted, gears, and the HL2 episodes are the best example:

When I finish a great story game, I just want the story to continue. At this point I have invested in the story and don't care about the tech. So why do so many companies suddenly plan more tech? I really don't get it.

Building and playtesting levels takes a long time, more then just a few months. More of the same will only sell to the hardcore fanbase, the rest of the market expects you to fix problems and introduce more fun.

Ok sure there may be a new mechanic required for story telling, but do we really need to rewrite the camera system, and don't get me started how many times I see trigger boxes rewritten.

They may need to rework other, invisible systems (scripting, rendering), sometimes they need better efficiency to free up resources for other stuff... who knows? They probably don't want to waste money either, so it probably has a reason.
 
That's not an average; it's a range. And a preposterous one to boot. Who the heckers is going to spend $250 million on a game? If you get 10 million sales at $60 a disc, the amount the publisher would get would likely just cover the cost of the game! And if the game prices go up, the number of buyers will go down. Maybe, at a push, episodic content created at $250 million over a period of 15 download episodes, would goggble up that much money on a single product.

Which doesn't explain anything about the average cost next gen. I imagine it'll be not much different to this gen, because if spending more doesn't yield more returns, no-one will do it. Even if the hardware is capable of rendering assets that took $100 million to make, it'll only get to show $20 million of assets because that's all anyone will spend. A lot will depend on growth of the gaming market and how factured it becomes. Corporate budgets on the whole will be better invested across multiple diverse titles across diverse platforms, rather than blown on a couple of epic titles.

The skyrocketing development cost has gone out of control, I hope they don't release another round of consoles anytime soon, the cost structure just isn't there to support all the asset creation and we're destined for another crash. $20 million is already a tremendous risk to take, budgets need to go down, not up.
 
Not as much as people seem to think.

A middleware boom with solutions made by multiple providers, from Crytek to Ready at Dawn, will also have a lot to say about development time and cost.

Middleware is not a cure-all, it's not like you don't need artists and game designers and programmers still. Who's actually using Crytek to make games right now?

Ready At Dawn hasn't even made a single current-gen game, they need to prove that they can make a current-gen game with their own engine before they can convince people to use it.
 
Building and playtesting levels takes a long time, more then just a few months. More of the same will only sell to the hardcore fanbase, the rest of the market expects you to fix problems and introduce more fun.

It's just my opinion, based on projects I've worked on over the years, and the focus testing we've done. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that you have the "hard core" / "more of the same" situation reversed.


They may need to rework other, invisible systems (scripting, rendering), sometimes they need better efficiency to free up resources for other stuff... who knows? They probably don't want to waste money either, so it probably has a reason.

Oh, they always say they need to rework those systems, programmers always do (and I'm one of them). But does it really? I suspect not in most cases. I think you'll find that throwing away code / refactoring / rewriting etc are not as carefully thought out as you'd think.
 
MrFloopy said:
Oh, they always say they need to rework those systems, programmers always do (and I'm one of them).
Most programmers need someone to TELL them when to stop doing something, otherwise they never do. And the tendency for "neverending improvements" is typically directly proportional with how smart the person is.

And I'm fairly certain that by the age we actually develop self-control, most will be changing careers or field of work already :p
 
Most games don't even get to part 2... And even if you're lucky there, you still can't delay return of investment for 3 projects. That's 6 years even with a killing schedule!

Not to mention that assets have to be remade to keep up with the fresh competition. Both Gears 2 and Uncharted 2 have significantly reworked returning characters, in some cases to the extreme. In Gears the Brumak and some other monster were completely re-done, although it was partially because the player was allowed to ride them and get the camera closer. But even Drake got some more polygons and completely re-done textures and shaders.

and don't you think that is stupid ?

Lets use Mass effect for an example.

You build your engine and your textures and what not. Release part 1. Release dlc for part one using same assets. While working on part one and the dlc have part 2 in development. Reuse assets adn textures from part 1 and dlc in part 2. While part 2 is in production start work on part 3. Release part 2 and dlc . Before part 3 comes out re release part 1 and 2 with the dlc in some game of the year edition or something. Release part three and DLC.

Sure you might make a shitty game. But bigger publishers can push past that and not every shitty game sells badly , look at assasians creed 1... its getting a sequal.

With my senario above you should be able to able to keep a steady stream of profit coming in while developing the other parts of the game and you should be able to continue to reuse assets even as you continue to add more and work on enhancing the engine to keep it fresh.

There is no reason to continuely remake the same assets over and over again and remake engines over and over again.

In fact take what i said above but instead of using the engine just for mass effect use it on every bioware game , or now every ea game where it could fit and just keep using it (yes i know it was based on the unreal 3 engine)
 
Most programmers need someone to TELL them when to stop doing something, otherwise they never do. And the tendency for "neverending improvements" is typically directly proportional with how smart the person is.

Spot on.

And I'm fairly certain that by the age we actually develop self-control, most will be changing careers or field of work already :p

I have started to see some change in this recently, so fingers crossed it really happens this time. But when you have trigger boxes being rewritten or 4 different base entity classes on 4 different projects it's hard to get too excited.
 
$250 million? Are you insane? That's $50 million more than what it cost to film Terminator Salvation.


There's rumors Killzone 2 cost 160 million. Far fetched sure, but just the mention of the number means something. Of course we will NEVER know the real cost. But one of the data points was a newspaper article that said it cost more than the most expensive Dutch film, to get back to your Terminator comparison.

And how does Terminator Salvation's budget say anything about videogames? Hell, honestly the first thing I think when I see T Salvation or Transformers 2 is "nice graphics". Yeah, you can practically think of summer blockbusters these days in terms of which has better graphics just like they were a game, they have so much CG involved.
 
I still don't get the big deal.

Plan for trilogys and spread costs over 3 titles. Reuse assets and continue with it . You can make 3 games like this for a much smaller cost than even 2 titles in which you need to remake assets each time.

All this talk of reusing assets and using mddleware engines ignores that imo it's not the best for the final product.

I mean, look at all the criticism Halo ODST got for "re-using assets". People are much more excited for Reach and it's new (presumably expensive) engine.

It's the same with UE3, engines are a floor on graphics (a UE3 game will never look too bad) but also a ceiling (they will never look amazing either). That's not a new thing, the same issue existed a decade ago when Quake 3 engine dominated.
 
There's rumors Killzone 2 cost 160 million. Far fetched sure, but just the mention of the number means something. Of course we will NEVER know the real cost. But one of the data points was a newspaper article that said it cost more than the most expensive Dutch film, to get back to your Terminator comparison.

And how does Terminator Salvation's budget say anything about videogames? Hell, honestly the first thing I think when I see T Salvation or Transformers 2 is "nice graphics". Yeah, you can practically think of summer blockbusters these days in terms of which has better graphics just like they were a game, they have so much CG involved.

It's been said that the bulk of the cost in producing a game is from creating artwork right? Well the artwork used for CGI in movies like Terminator Salvation is much more expensive to create than the artwork used in video games. I've read that CGI costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1million per minute. Teams working on JUST the CGI for a movie like Terminator Salavation or Transformers are bigger than the entire team for a video game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, that's right; although most movie post production schedules are less then a year (Pirates 2 for example was just a little more then 6 months for ILM). So more people have to be put on the job to finish on time.
 
Back
Top