TTG_Velocity wrote

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote Games are incredibly expensive to make now a days. I am actually shocked that the prices aren't over 150$ per game. If you think about it, 20 years ago a pac-man game used to cost 80$ for the NES and since then, prices for games have gotten CHEAPER for better quality games. For the games they make usually, 200+ people are working on a single title at once and each person gets paid a AT LEAST a minimum of 30k dollars. With the profits they make they are barely breaking even. A single title may well over cost 50 million dollars to make. I know for sure Skyrim was 120-150 million to produce. Cry engine 3 has had over 900+ individuals work on the intense graphics and gaming engine. What makes you think these people work for free? EA isn't greedy, they want to make a living and they need to do everything they can to make sure its possible for everyone in their company to keep their jobs.

Technology has advanced, it's easier to create better games. Also, with a higher fanbase, you can sell games cheaper and make a large profit, assuming the game is good.

Anyway, while I agree this is messed up, people have to realize EA isn't the only greedy company out there, it aggravates me when people act as if it's only them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Black Ops and MW2 retailed at the same price in the UK at first.

False, it is harder than ever to make games. People demand better quality from games (graphics, story, concept, etc) so developers work hard to make sure they can fulfill this obligation. Take in account Crysis 3 which had over 900 people work on the game. Then take a look at a game like the original Pac-Man which had less than 5 people work on it. Huge difference in numbers. Programming a game 20 years ago required you to write support for the many different hardware devices out on the market. With the new API's that Microsoft offers (DirectX) which supports almost all hardware devices, it's pretty easy to get your game across to the community but keep in mind the development process behind the game. If you don't believe me, go download Cry Engine 3 and take a look at yourself at just what the developers have to deal with. You can write a clone of Pac-Man with less than 100 lines of code in most languages. Crysis 3? More like a few million.

Technology has advanced enough to allow us to create better games in a short timeframe. Zelda Ocarina of Time was created for the N64 and in two years a sequel was released. We use the same timeframe and create something much better.

All I'm simply saying is that games can be created better, easier. If the Xbox 360 was available in the 1990's with no other advancements, it would take much longer to create a game to utilize the full potential. Granted, we also do have much more features to work on as well.

please say this doesnt include BF4

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote Games are incredibly expensive to make now a days. I am actually shocked that the prices aren't over 150$ per game. If you think about it, 20 years ago a pac-man game used to cost 80$ for the NES and since then, prices for games have gotten CHEAPER for better quality games. For the games they make usually, 200+ people are working on a single title at once and each person gets paid a AT LEAST a minimum of 30k dollars. With the profits they make they are barely breaking even. A single title may well over cost 50 million dollars to make. I know for sure Skyrim was 120-150 million to produce. Cry engine 3 has had over 900+ individuals work on the intense graphics and gaming engine. What makes you think these people work for free? EA isn't greedy, they want to make a living and they need to do everything they can to make sure its possible for everyone in their company to keep their jobs.

Technology has advanced, it's easier to create better games. Also, with a higher fanbase, you can sell games cheaper and make a large profit, assuming the game is good.

Anyway, while I agree this is messed up, people have to realize EA isn't the only greedy company out there, it aggravates me when people act as if it's only them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Black Ops and MW2 retailed at the same price in the UK at first.

False, it is harder than ever to make games. People demand better quality from games (graphics, story, concept, etc) so developers work hard to make sure they can fulfill this obligation. Take in account Crysis 3 which had over 900 people work on the game. Then take a look at a game like the original Pac-Man which had less than 5 people work on it. Huge difference in numbers. Programming a game 20 years ago required you to write support for the many different hardware devices out on the market. With the new API's that Microsoft offers (DirectX) which supports almost all hardware devices, it's pretty easy to get your game across to the community but keep in mind the development process behind the game. If you don't believe me, go download Cry Engine 3 and take a look at yourself at just what the developers have to deal with. You can write a clone of Pac-Man with less than 100 lines of code in most languages. Crysis 3? More like a few million.

Technology has advanced enough to allow us to create better games in a short timeframe. Zelda Ocarina of Time was created for the N64 and in two years a sequel was released. We use the same timeframe and create something much better.

All I'm simply saying is that games can be created better, easier. If the Xbox 360 was available in the 1990's with no other advancements, it would take much longer to create a game to utilize the full potential. Granted, we also do have much more features to work on as well.

Yeah. you have to also take into account the greater knowledge about coding we have now

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote Games are incredibly expensive to make now a days. I am actually shocked that the prices aren't over 150$ per game. If you think about it, 20 years ago a pac-man game used to cost 80$ for the NES and since then, prices for games have gotten CHEAPER for better quality games. For the games they make usually, 200+ people are working on a single title at once and each person gets paid a AT LEAST a minimum of 30k dollars. With the profits they make they are barely breaking even. A single title may well over cost 50 million dollars to make. I know for sure Skyrim was 120-150 million to produce. Cry engine 3 has had over 900+ individuals work on the intense graphics and gaming engine. What makes you think these people work for free? EA isn't greedy, they want to make a living and they need to do everything they can to make sure its possible for everyone in their company to keep their jobs.

Technology has advanced, it's easier to create better games. Also, with a higher fanbase, you can sell games cheaper and make a large profit, assuming the game is good.

Anyway, while I agree this is messed up, people have to realize EA isn't the only greedy company out there, it aggravates me when people act as if it's only them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Black Ops and MW2 retailed at the same price in the UK at first.

False, it is harder than ever to make games. People demand better quality from games (graphics, story, concept, etc) so developers work hard to make sure they can fulfill this obligation. Take in account Crysis 3 which had over 900 people work on the game. Then take a look at a game like the original Pac-Man which had less than 5 people work on it. Huge difference in numbers. Programming a game 20 years ago required you to write support for the many different hardware devices out on the market. With the new API's that Microsoft offers (DirectX) which supports almost all hardware devices, it's pretty easy to get your game across to the community but keep in mind the development process behind the game. If you don't believe me, go download Cry Engine 3 and take a look at yourself at just what the developers have to deal with. You can write a clone of Pac-Man with less than 100 lines of code in most languages. Crysis 3? More like a few million.

Technology has advanced enough to allow us to create better games in a short timeframe. Zelda Ocarina of Time was created for the N64 and in two years a sequel was released. We use the same timeframe and create something much better.

All I'm simply saying is that games can be created better, easier. If the Xbox 360 was available in the 1990's with no other advancements, it would take much longer to create a game to utilize the full potential. Granted, we also do have much more features to work on as well.

Again, you are completely wrong and you are not getting the point. Ocarina took so long to develop because it was originally going to be released for the 64DD but because that got delayed by many months, they had to redesign the game into the general console (n64) since they didn't want to wait for the 64DD anymore. The 64DD had twice the storage than the n64 had, so they had to come up with clever tricks to do the things they wanted and reduce the file size of the game. With that in mind, it still took less than a dozen people to design and develop the game and in the end, the game still maxed out the cartridge capacity. It used the original Mario 64 engine (made by less than a dozen people) and with the new developers they were able to modify the engine so much that it became an entirely new engine. Now take those dozen people who made and developed Ocarina and task them with making a game like Bf or Cod, it will take them a decade to finish it with the major limitations in production time. You can't expect 10 people to create that kind of game so what happened? Studios realized that they needed way more people to help develop these complex systems of games and not rely on a few people. That's why EA is charging more for their games because greedy people want the games in shorter times so they have to hire more people to work on the game which increases production costs. I have over 8 years of game development experience and I can tell you by first hand it is difficult to make a game. You get tasked with the simplest things to increase productivity times and yet it still takes ages to put it all together.

Yes now games can be created better but it is not easier to make games. You can download some silly public engine like DarkSDK and put a few images together and call it a game. But making that engine is the real story and it takes YEARS to make one from scratch. I can spend a whole 8 years of my life working alone on a complicated physics engine like the ones used in BF3. If the Xbox 360 was available in the 1990's, it would still take the same time to create and develop the games since C++ and DirectX were still out and judging by the power of the system at that time, it could do a lot with the shitty code uneducated developers would write.

TTG_Velocity wrote

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote

Kerrigan wrote

TTG_Velocity wrote Games are incredibly expensive to make now a days. I am actually shocked that the prices aren't over 150$ per game. If you think about it, 20 years ago a pac-man game used to cost 80$ for the NES and since then, prices for games have gotten CHEAPER for better quality games. For the games they make usually, 200+ people are working on a single title at once and each person gets paid a AT LEAST a minimum of 30k dollars. With the profits they make they are barely breaking even. A single title may well over cost 50 million dollars to make. I know for sure Skyrim was 120-150 million to produce. Cry engine 3 has had over 900+ individuals work on the intense graphics and gaming engine. What makes you think these people work for free? EA isn't greedy, they want to make a living and they need to do everything they can to make sure its possible for everyone in their company to keep their jobs.

Technology has advanced, it's easier to create better games. Also, with a higher fanbase, you can sell games cheaper and make a large profit, assuming the game is good.

Anyway, while I agree this is messed up, people have to realize EA isn't the only greedy company out there, it aggravates me when people act as if it's only them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Black Ops and MW2 retailed at the same price in the UK at first.

False, it is harder than ever to make games. People demand better quality from games (graphics, story, concept, etc) so developers work hard to make sure they can fulfill this obligation. Take in account Crysis 3 which had over 900 people work on the game. Then take a look at a game like the original Pac-Man which had less than 5 people work on it. Huge difference in numbers. Programming a game 20 years ago required you to write support for the many different hardware devices out on the market. With the new API's that Microsoft offers (DirectX) which supports almost all hardware devices, it's pretty easy to get your game across to the community but keep in mind the development process behind the game. If you don't believe me, go download Cry Engine 3 and take a look at yourself at just what the developers have to deal with. You can write a clone of Pac-Man with less than 100 lines of code in most languages. Crysis 3? More like a few million.

Technology has advanced enough to allow us to create better games in a short timeframe. Zelda Ocarina of Time was created for the N64 and in two years a sequel was released. We use the same timeframe and create something much better.

All I'm simply saying is that games can be created better, easier. If the Xbox 360 was available in the 1990's with no other advancements, it would take much longer to create a game to utilize the full potential. Granted, we also do have much more features to work on as well.

Again, you are completely wrong and you are not getting the point. Ocarina took so long to develop because it was originally going to be released for the 64DD but because that got delayed by many months, they had to redesign the game into the general console (n64) since they didn't want to wait for the 64DD anymore. The 64DD had twice the storage than the n64 had, so they had to come up with clever tricks to do the things they wanted and reduce the file size of the game. With that in mind, it still took less than a dozen people to design and develop the game and in the end, the game still maxed out the cartridge capacity. It used the original Mario 64 engine (made by less than a dozen people) and with the new developers they were able to modify the engine so much that it became an entirely new engine. Now take those dozen people who made and developed Ocarina and task them with making a game like Bf or Cod, it will take them a decade to finish it with the major limitations in production time. You can't expect 10 people to create that kind of game so what happened? Studios realized that they needed way more people to help develop these complex systems of games and not rely on a few people. That's why EA is charging more for their games because greedy people want the games in shorter times so they have to hire more people to work on the game which increases production costs. I have over 8 years of game development experience and I can tell you by first hand it is difficult to make a game. You get tasked with the simplest things to increase productivity times and yet it still takes ages to put it all together.

Yes now games can be created better but it is not easier to make games. You can download some silly public engine like DarkSDK and put a few images together and call it a game. But making that engine is the real story and it takes YEARS to make one from scratch. I can spend a whole 8 years of my life working alone on a complicated physics engine like the ones used in BF3. If the Xbox 360 was available in the 1990's, it would still take the same time to create and develop the games since C++ and DirectX were still out and judging by the power of the system at that time, it could do a lot with the shitty code uneducated developers would write.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'm not going to even bother reading the whole pot.

Morrowind was out in 2002. Last DLC was 2003, we can assume the next biggest title was under development at this time, and the team moved over. Oblivion was in 2006, this is a 2-3 year time frame. Every major title from them is 2-3 years apart.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Each major title from the 1990's to 2000's is around 4 years apart. (Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft)

I'm not disagreeing that development has become harder, but simply that the technology makes it easier to create better games by standard. Like you said, Pacman would be simple to make now, 2D games that took months to years are simple projects. Low budget indie studios make games like this with hardly anything.

Teams have now become larger, games require more money and more programming then before however.

TTG_Velocity wrote Games are incredibly expensive to make now a days. I am actually shocked that the prices aren't over 150$ per game. If you think about it, 20 years ago a pac-man game used to cost 80$ for the NES and since then, prices for games have gotten CHEAPER for better quality games. For the games they make usually, 200+ people are working on a single title at once and each person gets paid a AT LEAST a minimum of 30k dollars. With the profits they make they are barely breaking even. A single title may well over cost 50 million dollars to make. I know for sure Skyrim was 120-150 million to produce. Cry engine 3 has had over 900+ individuals work on the intense graphics and gaming engine. What makes you think these people work for free? EA isn't greedy, they want to make a living and they need to do everything they can to make sure its possible for everyone in their company to keep their jobs.

No. First of all, let's take a game like Skyrim and see how much it has made. Skyrim, according to Wikipedia, already made $650 million as of December 2011. If the numbers that you pulled out of thin air are right, then Skyrim has made around $500 million, excluding the cost of advertising. Now, $500 million is a pretty decent amount of cash, and I'm sure they've made much more than that now, considering that a lot of people are still buying that brilliant game. Bethesda has made their money back, as if they didn't, they would be bankrupt. Infact, they've made a lot more than what they've poured into the game.

Many AAA games do end up making a profit, so the price of games shouldn't be increased. Look at Activision, EA, and other companies. They're making TONS of money. Activision Blizzard made 1.149 billion in net income, out of $4.856 billion in total revenue in 2012. EA made 76 million in net income out of $4.143 billion in total revenue in 2012. Does every game succeed in making a profit? No, but that happens in every industry. In the movie industry, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to create a good blockbuster, and games cost much more than movies do. Games shouldn't be more money. If they were, less people would buy them, due to the cost. That would thus result in developers losing money, as the cost of entry to buy those games would be too high. There is a maximum price point that the market is willing to accept for video games, and $60 is the limit for console games. If games were to cost $100+, no one would buy them.