Cost of next-gen game production is a burden on developers

by Griffin McElroy { Dec 29th 2007 at 8:00PM }

Game developers always have a sizable stack of things to worry about when working on a new project; things like: Is my game going to be any good? Will people buy my game? Am I making Vampire Rain? Is it too late to cancel? Of course, financial worries are always present for developers, who have a growing number of costs to deal with during the creation of a game. However, according to a recent report by BBC News, budgeting woes have escalated into a full-blown panic among developers due to the growing cost of making games for next-gen consoles.

To put things in perspective, the article gives the example of Namco, who, in 1982, made Pac-Man for nearly $100,000 (today, it would be about double that amount, due to inflation). According to BBC News, the average PS3 game costs nearly $15 million to make -- and that's before any marketing is done for the game. Not only is this bad news for gamers, as it almost ensures our store shelves will be stocked with sequel after buyer-recognizable sequel, but it's also bad for developers, who could go belly up after one unsuccessful title.

As technology continues to improve and game consoles get more sophisticated, we wonder how this price spiral will continue to affect the industry. Will there be more safety-ensuring corporate mergers? Higher quality games? Most worryingly -- will there be too few games released to sustain the industry? The video game crash of 1983 was due to there being too many games on the market -- will a situation on the opposite end of the spectrum lead to another crash? For all our sakes, we certainly hope not.

(Via Evil Avatar)

Tags: development, namco, pac-man

Related From Joystiq

Level-5 has surprises in store for Wii and PS3
11 hours ago
People still mostly buy physical copies of games
26 days ago
Capcom: Wii is 'a tough market to crack'
29 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

tmacairjordan87 @ Dec 29th 2007 8:08PM

jeeze i had no idea that today's games cost more to make than pac man did....

seriously i think most people know by now that today's AAA games cost ridiculous amounts to make.

Yoshi Likes Boys @ Dec 29th 2007 8:14PM

But it isn't the AAA games, it's ALL PS3 games, didn't you read the blurb? $15 million is the average.

This isn't surprising at all, unfortunately.

Arno @ Dec 29th 2007 10:13PM

Without trying to insinuate a fanboy war, I wouldn't call Heavenly Sword a AAA title.

roxxxo @ Dec 30th 2007 1:04AM

$200k in today's dollars makes a better game than 15 million. lol

Balla360 @ Dec 30th 2007 10:20AM

Why would you try to use a big word like "insinuate" without knowing it's meaning? I believe you're looking for initiate.

nealbailey @ Dec 30th 2007 11:26AM

"I wouldn't call Heavenly Sword a AAA title."

Well then you obviously haven't played it because it's certainly a AAA title. In fact I think it's the best PS3 game I've played to date.

roxxxo @ Dec 30th 2007 11:43AM

neal, that's not saying much

Fatass of Kickassness @ Dec 30th 2007 12:05PM

Balla, it looks like you`re the one who doesn't know the meaning of insinuate. He used the term correctly.

tmacairjordan87 @ Dec 30th 2007 12:13PM

roxxo that is saying something, because like i said somewhere on here after 1 year the ps3 has a lot more quality games than any other playstation ever had, and they certainly have more quality games than the wii does (not including psn or vc).

The wii has galaxy, a gamecube crossover of a zelda game, and metroid 3 as its biggest games out there currently. Resident evil 4 if you have to include it, even though i played it on my ps2 a couple years ago.

PS3 has heavenly sword, uncharted, ratchet and clank, warhawk (counting the disc version), resistance, motorstorm, and UT3. While galaxy may be better than these games, overall the current ps3 lineup completely owns the current wii lineup.

Pureshooter @ Dec 30th 2007 7:00PM

"instigate" ftw

Slaziman (B-B-BRUSHED WITH FAAAAME) @ Dec 30th 2007 7:46PM

Mario Strikers Charged, Warioware Smooth Moves, Trauma Center: Second Opinion, Zack & Wiki and Super Paper Mario destroy Heavenly sword, at least on Metacritic.

Maybe you liked it, but you are in the minority, pal.

Slaziman (B-B-BRUSHED WITH FAAAAME) @ Dec 30th 2007 7:46PM

jovin6 @ Dec 31st 2007 2:34AM

No. He did not use "insinuate" correctly. "Instigate" is probably what he was after, although "initiate" makes sense as well.

Also, I find it funny that the guy who brought this up in the first place incorrectly used "it's" in place of "its."

SoulBlade @ Dec 29th 2007 8:06PM

big software projects cost big dollars... games are more and more ambitious these days, and they're going to require some money to develop.

Shagittarius @ Dec 30th 2007 12:26AM

Tools will catch up. No need to reinvent the wheel for every game. 3rd party tools and reusable assets

Chainblast @ Dec 30th 2007 1:24AM

So the game industry is worth more than the film industry yet at a fraction of the cost of a major film release they're in panic mode? K.

The best resolution? Long-term cycles. 10 years consoles has to become reality or it won't work. But what do I know, I'm full of beer.

sheppy2.0 @ Dec 30th 2007 1:44AM

Film and Games are two different things, actually.

For example? When you go see a movie with a friend, both pay for their own ticket. When you play a game with a friend, only one pays.

Movies make money in several stages, games only have that one. Which is why games ARE so expensive.

Psaakyrn @ Dec 30th 2007 8:19AM

Nope, still more similar than you think.

Movies eventually (and often sooner) heads to home media formats. Over there, it's in the same arena as games.

Games come in limited edition bundles, which encourage buying for self-use instead of sharing.

For that matter, certain genres of games (mostly in the MMO side, though certain online-enabled games like those on Steam also has such protection) specifically prevents players from sharing to an extent. Once as home media formats, movies has no such protection. (though top-box format movies might fare better)

SoulBlade @ Dec 30th 2007 1:01PM

Tools will certainly catch up, but there's only so much they can do. Also, many studios take a "Not invented here" approach and don't like using outside tools, so the in house ones take quite a bit of time and money to develop.

Also, working with other companies can be problematic as it's much easier to rely on talent in house rather than outside - then you gotta shell out money for the support and the tools.

tyetheczar @ Dec 30th 2007 4:31PM

At least we can consider the quality of the games this year compared to the movies, oy. Which one was actually viewable? Charlie Wilson's War. It was obvious games were winning when a Movie guy was blaming Halo 3 for low box-office sales.

ownd @ Dec 29th 2007 8:11PM

obviously it means they have to start making GOOD games that we are willing to buy or gouge us on crap sequels which seems to be the current trend

samfish @ Dec 29th 2007 9:00PM

That would be ideal, except people generally don't buy into new franchises...unless it includes an epic advertising budget to help roll it out, a la Assassins Creed or Gears of War.

There are a lot more fantastic new series that never got off the ground than there are ones that were a success.

StrangeBum @ Dec 29th 2007 11:48PM

As samfish had put it, those great games that never get off the ground and allow the developers to continue is the sad truth. So many games like Beyond Good and Evil and Psychonauts, which I never played the first go around, but am loving it after downloading it from XBL, but so many games like those are great games. Classics in their own rights, but they don't survive because they can't generate appeal.

Too new and fresh doesn't market, they stick to what they know sells. Which sucks. I want some next-gen Psychonauts :(

/rant

Bluebrake @ Dec 29th 2007 8:12PM

How the hell did they manage to spend $100,000 making Pac-Man? Did they hire Hollywood hookers to program it?

As for the current budget crisis, I think the solution is better and more extensive use of middleware. Generic physics/AI tools, procedural animation, intelligent modeling software, that kind of thing. I think we'll see the majority of code behind our games being licensed the way that engines are today.

bm @ Dec 29th 2007 9:55PM

Well for starters, games were new back then, and all the genres we take for granted hadn't been invented yet, so it would've taken more time to come up with and polish a concept like Pac-man with nothing (or not much) to build upon.

Then there's the fact that unlike the powerful tools we have today, this game was probably created in pure assembly. No fancy libraries or high-level languages. Graphics engine, sound engine, everything, hand-coded in machine language from scratch.

Though even considering that it still seems much. Then again, 15 million for a short buttonbasher with average looking 3D models and some pretty pre-cooked pixel shaders seems much as well.

Burnt Meatloaf @ Dec 29th 2007 11:01PM

Plus, they had to design the hardware from scratch. They didn't have reference boards, development kits, workstations, or "C" back then.

RoboChamp @ Dec 29th 2007 8:13PM

Well, there are DOWNLOADABLE titles to help balance out the equation. Not to mention handheld games as a smaller-scale prodution. Really, there are tons of cheaper venues for game production. Devs don't always have to break the bank to exist.

cxm @ Dec 30th 2007 1:16PM

The question is, are the downloadable and handheld titles worth the time and money? NDS games have the potential to sell a mint, but there are a ton of NDS games out there, and only a few of them are making money hand over fist. Downloadable titles also have trouble catching the public eye. Outside of Puzzle Quest, Geometry Wars, and a few others, how many of them have generated a lot of buzz outside of the hardcore gamer side of the equation? Development of these titles, while cheaper than your run of the mill console title, may still run into the millions (one XBLA game I know of that's currently in the preproduction stages has an estimated budget of 2 million dollars). Since downloadables and handhelds look like a larger risk as far as market penetration goes, I can see how many studios will only look to these formats to supplement their stable instead of rely on it to keep them afloat.

Korova @ Dec 29th 2007 8:13PM

More middleware is the answer, no?

And arent PS3 games harder to develop? Or was that all bull troll rumor crap a couple of months ago?

Poisoned Al @ Dec 30th 2007 4:03AM

No they are. Any programmer would cringe at the thought of developing for a machine with more then a few cores unless they had something to build on. The PS3 has 7 cores (non of which are specialized like a GPU to make life a bit easier) and bugger all dev tools.

Think of it this way. On the 360, programming for the hardware is very much like playing catch with a ball. You can goof up but it's not too hard to pass the ball back and forth across the cores. The PS3 wants you to juggle while doing it's tax returns.

The long and the short of it is, the PS3's processor is marketing fluff and a cheap hardware trick. YES the PS3 is WAY more powerful then the 360, and 7 cores sound SO good to anyone who doesn't have to write code the bastard thing, but few people use so many cores becuase it's such a pig to use. Case in point, the first Playsation was not as powerful as the Sega Saturn, yet the games looked better on the PS1. Why? It's because the Saturn had multiple processors and no real GPU to do fancy lens flares and filter effects. When someone could be arsed to jump though the hoops to get the thing going, the Saturn could make some great looking games. However, everyone outside Sega COULDN'T be arsed, and just made crappy ports for it.

Oh and the Saturn was too expensive and the marketing team was a bunch of retarded chimpanzees.

Remind you of anything?

Night Elve @ Dec 29th 2007 8:24PM

I'm pretty sure any AAA game nowadays cost a fortune to develop I wonder how much cost Halo 3 (Without including the Ad campaign).

This is not really a surprise anymore considering that games are getting much more complex these days.

Night Elve @ Dec 29th 2007 8:29PM

Oh my bad. I already saw the answer on the article.

Carl Abrams @ Dec 30th 2007 10:15AM

The thing is - they could afford to spend $30 million - or even $45 million - on Halo 3 because that was a drop kick - they KNEW it was going to get all of it's money back.

But when you're spending $15 million on a game, even at $60 a pop - that means you MUST sell more than 250,000 copies of that game AT THAT PRICE to break even. It doesn't do you much good if the game ends up in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $40 three weeks after release because it only sold 50,000 copies.

Sure, with a world wide audience, you'll probably sell just through sheer number 300,000 of almost any title - but can the game companies afford that balancing act, because all of those development costs are all pre-sale. You invest the money and hope you get it back - and in the meantime, you've got to be working on the next two or three titles, so you're talking about having $60 million (or more) in capital tied up in projects before you actually even START to balance your ledger sheet.

ThornedVenom @ Dec 29th 2007 8:30PM

Hahaha to all those developers who have lost their way to true game design!

High budget becomes less profitable to the point where multiplatforming loses more money than it creates! (according to some real life article I read the other day)

A good game will always be a good game, regardless of the amount of tech!

I'm starting to believe that Nintendo really nailed it this time.

Jeff @ Dec 29th 2007 11:41PM

Yeah except Nintendo games suck.

Vote me down, but it's true. I got sick of playing Mario and Zelda last century.

Fatass of Kickassness @ Dec 30th 2007 12:09AM

Shame, because you're missing out on some of the best games available.

Nintendo may not have the best quality control when it comes to what shit they let 3rd parties dump on their systems, but when it comes to making games, well, they know how to do it. Really, the only people I know who say they're 'sick' of Mario and Zelda are tools who care not about having fun with games but how they look in the eyes of other gamers or other people.

sheppy2.0 @ Dec 30th 2007 1:05AM

Hate to be the naysayer but Nintendo isn't all Mario and Zelda. In fact, plenty of their FIRST PARTY games suck too. I could go into Warioware Smooth Moves and it's three hours you needed to play before unlocking multiplayer IN A FUCKING PARTY GAME. But that would indicate the multiplayer aspect was actually tested. And considering the 5 seconds they give you to unsecure the one wiimote, pass it to the friend, he resecures it, takes up the new position, all frantically trying to pass the controller around before their minigame is failed out. And let's not forget Pokemon Battle Revolution and Mario Party 8.

Sometimes I don't understand the hero worship. They release Face Training and Mario Party DS and yet they still have a legion of people thinking every nugget which gets pushed out of Itawa's hindquarters is a gem and a gift to the gaming industry.

Geist @ Dec 30th 2007 5:28AM

Sheppy you need to get some quicker friends. I've played that in a room full of people, and we had a blast.

playwhutyalike (hates games lists) @ Dec 30th 2007 9:48AM

Hey look everybody, Jeff is crying again. Just like the other forum he was in, and the one before that.

Obie @ Dec 29th 2007 8:35PM

Yes, current gen games cost a lot to make, but if well received they also get grosses that rival Hollywood blockbusters. The developers just have to make sure they invest the money in a game that doesn't suck *cough* Lair *cough*.

LiK @ Dec 29th 2007 8:37PM

i think publishers should look at a game like Aquaria where only TWO guys made it. it shows that you don't need a huge amount of people or a ton of money to make a quality game.

i understand that they need a ton of people to utilize the technology today but awesome graphics and sound doesn't save you from mediocre gameplay *cough*Lair*cough*.

LiK @ Dec 29th 2007 8:38PM

haha Obie, you posted the Lair reference right before i submitted my comment. great minds think alike. *high five* :P

Obie @ Dec 29th 2007 9:11PM

Damn! We even typed it the same way...scary! :p

pipinocuevas @ Dec 29th 2007 8:43PM

obviously that happend when the game is great!

ChimpWithAHandgun @ Dec 29th 2007 8:46PM

PCs will the the vultures waiting to pick at the carcasses of dead consoles

JakubK666 @ Dec 30th 2007 9:31AM

Quoting South Park: Der [Consoles] took er games!

PC Power! For everybody who proclaims how PC gaming is dead, do you mind saying that to their faces :)

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/previews/pc/world-warcraft/world-of-warcraft-a.jpg

samfish @ Dec 29th 2007 8:55PM

Hence why Nintendo was absolutely right to go with an "underpowered" machine. PS3 and 360 are just WAY over powered...not the other way around.
Everybody knew this was coming. People have been saying it for years. If anything is going to cause another gaming industry crash, it's massive, unsustainable budgets. Not shovelware crap.

The best thing that can happen when the next generation of consoles starts to roll out is that they're 5-7 times as powerful as the PS360...NOT more than that.

You want high end, mind blowing graphics? Buy a PC or go to an arcade. That's the way it used to be done (until Nintendo, ironically, started a power arms race)

James @ Dec 29th 2007 8:57PM

My thoughts exactly.

Bluebrake @ Dec 29th 2007 9:57PM

>You want high end, mind blowing graphics? Buy a PC or go to an arcade.

From a developer's (economic) standpoint, there's no difference between PC/Arcade games and consoles. The budgets for all 3 spiral upward with the technology. In fact, the profits from those platforms are usually lower, making it even riskier to develop high-end games for them.

You can't stop the progress of graphics technology, and there's no sense in trying. It's what a lot of consumers want, and as long as they do, companies like Sony, Microsoft, and their AAA third parties will continue to oblige.

The solution isn't to halt hardware development, because people won't accept that.* The solution is to come up with new strategies that reduce development budgets and schedules while maintaining technological advancements. This is where the middleware mentioned a few times in this thread comes in.

*Yes, obviously people have accepted that with the Wii, but the Wii fills a niche market -- a very large niche, but not large enough to fit 3 competing consoles and a thousand developers. "Gameplay over graphics" only satisfies a certain percentage of gamers a certain percentage of the time.