Like government these companies have become bloated pigs. Ever watch the end credits on a COD game or other big title game? There's like 10000 people and a hundred sub-studios listed.
Yes, video game budgets are skyrocketing, but the reason goes beyond graphics
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Like government these companies have become bloated pigs. Ever watch the end credits on a COD game or other big title game? There's like 10000 people and a hundred sub-studios listed.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,214 +1,328
The problem is we're basically out of ways to make faster HW. We can't shrink much anymore, and the power/thermal requirements are already getting a bit insane. That's why there's been so much focus on other ways to improve image quality (first through new AA modes, now through upscalers), display tech (VRR/HDR), and other features (AI, etc) rather then pure performance.
Lets face it: We basically tapped out on major graphic enhancements in the 360/PS3 era, and have been chasing incremental improvements since.
hwertz
Posts: 638 +338
Yup, this is true. I mean, in the early 1980s, there were loads of games for like $20. But $20 in 1982 is $65 today. And that was for something like Asteroids or Pacman or Star Raiders. Or Zork for that matter. Of course the scale was way different (in terms of how many units you could realistically expect to sell.)
Honestly AAA games are a remarkable bargain.
As for the article itself... I agree about labor costs and all that, they aren't wrong. But a decent amount of those labor costs are from using extremely detailed graphics, using every trick in the book in game engines, sometimes switching to a newer engine mid-game-dev to get more "tricks in the book" to use, etc. So, you end up with individually rendered arm-hairs (instead of an arm texture with hair on it); raytraced lighting instead of some pre-computed shinies and reflections; whatever other tricks the newest game engine has to put in your game. Then they can find out the FPS drops off on the game systems they intended to ship to, so they have to spend more time and effort optimizing the game. Then perhaps again if they ever intend to run it on the Switch. Again for a PC port, where they miss out on sales if it's too heavy for the Steam Deck, and miss out on more sales from other PC players who may have wanted to play but find out they don't meet the system requirements. All for graphics that are maybe 5-10% better looking than if they just stuck to, say, PS4-level graphics or even high-end PS3, and focused on gameplay instead.
Except this isn't a bubble, it's just that visuals are getting better and better, and it requires more and more resources.
You are wrong, totally, wrong....technology investment cost is relative to what's new at the moment as anyone would agree the cutting edge in game development back in the in the early 2000's were just as costly for gaming studios then as they are now for them with current technology....besides technology investments is a fraction of the cost compared to the overblown salaries for game developers and producers.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
NordVPN debuts new protocol that could make VPN connections undetectable- captaincranky replied
-
Selling fear: How cybersecurity marketing uses consumer anxiety for profit
- captaincranky replied
-
Every angle covered: nearly 250 Sony cameras set to capture Super Bowl LIX
- captaincranky replied
-
Apartment landlords can force tenants to use specific ISPs under new FCC action- scavengerspc replied