How many years in development is "okay" for a game?

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I would lean toward the "as long as it takes" approach. Saying that, games like LA Noire that took 7 years to make is probably too much. And if it is in development please don't bother announcing it so early on, when anything could happen or we could be waiting years (see Time Shift for how not to develop or market a game).

I would always prefer, as a customer, to wait for a proper polished product than to be stuck with buggy, unfinished games. Cases in point, Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, KotOR II, Alpha Protocol. All three are wonderful RPGs with great stories that stay with you long after the end credits. All three were also released too early and were full of bugs, missing content, unfinished areas (and even missions) and so on. Now the only thing that is remembered about them is that they were all three flawed gems, great games that could have been genre defining successes except for the greedy, moron publishers who insist on a "Christmas Window" or other nonsense.

Don't mistake me, I appreciate that from a business point of view, time is money and the longer development goes on for, the more it costs the publisher. LA Noire springs to mind again with its first publisher withdrawing totally and Rockstar stepping in to not only save the title (and the studio, albeit that only temporarily), but to eventually even help with development as well. The most extreme case, Duke Nukem Forever, long considered the industry's biggest joke actually got made 13 years after it was announced. While the final version had zero in common with the original proposed title from the 90s (beyond the name), it probably should've been allowed to remain unmade.

If I had to put a number, I would say 7 years...SW: Old Republic and LA Noire took that length of time but are complete, polished, well made products. More than that I can't imagine any publisher ever committing too, not in the day and age where Activision can make many millions with a < 1 year development cycle churning out the same game with a number increase.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Depends on how demanding your clientele is, I'd say about 80% is perfectly ok with yearly stamp outs, I mean sports games still outsell every new IP... peoples standards are real damn low.

But for a good triple A title I'd say about 4-5 years is the optimal length to polish it all out, beyond that you run into the old engine issue and if you haveto start over on a new engine it's just time pissed away.

 

[Vault101]

its gotta be more than 1

just look at assins creed and how well THAT is going

I disagree as someone who supports iterative improvements for planned series. Ubisoft created a sound gameplay engine with AC2 and are keeping the tension in the story high (for those who care) through cliffhangers and by not waiting a billion years between each release. Iterative improvements means that they aren't changing things up so much that they render prior games unplayable (save for the AC1-AC2 jump.)

People's opinions of its story notwithstanding, I care a fair bit about what happens next in ACIII thanks to those techniques. And speaking as someone who holds Half-Life 2 as his favorite FPS...You know what I don't give a shit about anymore? Gordon Freeman, or the G-man, or Alyx, or anyone in that series.

But I'm sure I'm alone in that. I'm sure their terrifyingly complicated follow-up to HL2 will have a Song of Ice and Fire-level scope and glaringly photoreal graphics that paint a gorgeous bleak symphony of decay and hope through it's environments, create gender equality through Alyx Vance's character arc and finally elevate games to "art" status--

Just kidding. I waited less than most, but those who've waited since HL2's launch have stuck with it for the greater part of a decade...for a point-and-pew-pew first person shooter vidyigaem whose story you fill in the blanks for yourself.

More time = more polish, yes, but devs should keep things in perspective. Too much time = waning interest. No work of art is worth Blizzard or Valve time to me anyway.

brotherhood feels like Assasins creed 2.20..I felt I was playing it because I had to (for thr story) not because I wanted too

revelations is a little better..but still not as good ,their strategy seems like "add more shit to the core gameplay! just throw it on there! more! more! MORE!

assasins creed is somthing good...like a block of top-deck chocolate , but I DONT want to keep stuffing my face with chocolate because it will make me feel sick, especially if that chocolate is of lesser quality

I would need time to get hungry for chocolate agin...same with assasins creed, they need to take the time to put out somthing more polished, focus on the core gameplay, mabye try some more stealth

like the shit with recruiting assasins..ok that was good for brotherhood that was part of the story...but do I really need that in revelations? it was ok but it wasnt somthing I would miss

if they took some time to put out somthing with more polish...and that would give me time to WANT more assasins creed.....to feel excited about it again

you seem to have a serious problem with half life as well

 

[BreakfastMan]

As many as it takes... Look at blizzards games.

If your game is going to suck either trash it or take as much time as it needs.

DONT RELEASE UNFINISHED FUCKING GAMES!!!!!

I concur. Take as much time as is needed. I don't get why people insist that there must be a certain amount of time between games. If they can get a good game out in a year, why stop them?

 

[Pegghead]

Putting aside the sort of games that are built in less than a week, I'd say that for standard-fare videogames one year is the minimum for decent quality and four years is as far as a development can go until you as a consumer can basically not expect the project to ever come out (with the timer starting as soon is the game is given a real announcement, so it's unfair to keep asking Valve about episode 3 when they haven't even announced that they've started work on it).

 

[Scarim Coral]

Depends on what type of game it is and how much content is in it. I say on average it would be 3 years but if it's a mmo then I say more than that (much to my dismay).

 

[Pinkamena]

As many years as it takes to make the game good.

 

[Jodah]

As long as is necessary as long as it ends up being a good game. Blizzard is famous for taking forever and a day to get games out. But guess what? Their games sell like hotcakes. People will wait for a good game.

On the other hand, some games don't need that long to be good. An example of that is the Assassin's Creed series. New games come out just about every year yet they are all well received.

 

[Joccaren]

It depends on the game and the price tag.

A $60 game should have had at least 3 years development in it. Bethesda gets away with 5 years and still makes a profit, so production costs are no excuse. If you don't think you'll need that time, you're not adding enough to the game to justify a $60 price tag sorry, and you'll have to sell it for less IMO.

Now, there will be the odd exception. If they keep basically the same concept, with a new story, on a VASTLY improved engine (Think BF2 to BF3 improvement), with EVERYTHING upscaling massively (BF2 to BF3 sort of thing for graphics, bugs being at an all time low should be a part of it, near perfect balance should be worked on for multiplayer, ect), then I'll accept a $60 price tag for less than three years. Sadly, that doesn't happen, and more time is needed for that sort of work to be done.
Things like CoD should not be $60. I don't care how popular they are, the same amount of work that goes into each new iteration goes into the expansion packs released for other games within the past 10 years that sell for $20-$40.
Things like Skyrim have an appropriate price. Whilst 2 years more than what I'd accept as the minimum for a $60 price tag went into it, thus indicating its price should have been higher, the game really wasn't ready for release, with far too many quest breaking, at least one main story breaking, and one major game breaking bugs. On top of that, PC graphics were meh to bad, despite them being Heralded as awesome, and so much more just could have been done with the game. Put more time into making it more better, and I would happily pay more money for it. Had it made the most of what its potential allowed - no bugs, intelligent AI that made fighting a challenge because they were smart, not because they had a load of health and damage, great graphics, a world that acted without you (Civil war goes on no matter what, but will get nowhere until you interfere, Dragons attack towns whilst you're not there, but don't do a lot except kill completely expendable NPCs and guards that you find your next run around) and properly reacted to you (Instead of a guard saying 'Your that new member of the companions... bla bla bla', they give you a quest BECAUSE you are a member of the companions, and it is unavailable unless you hold that rank. That guy when the companions hire you KNOWS who you are if you've done something he should know about. He can still try to reject you. Say you're the Thane of Whiterun - 'He's better suited to the comfort life than that of a warrior'. Your the Archmage? - 'He could have an honourable fight if he tried, he relies too much on his magic', ect.) and at least 20 NPCs across the world that can handle an actual conversation that you feel somewhat invested in, as well as making some of the areas a bit more interesting and not having every quest be a 'go to this cave and collect this item' sort of thing (Say one villager asks you to kill another - far more interesting than going to a troll cave to get trolled and grab a shield - or steal something from the Jarl, something that makes you think that little bit more about what you're doing than simply 'Go to cave, kill stuff, bring back'), more interesting spells (Common. Flames and Fire wall are basically the same, except Fire wall stays on the ground for you to kite them over for a few seconds, and costs a ton more mana. Then you've got Firebolt and Fire Ball, and the Ice and lightning equivalents. There are a couple of interesting spells, but how about something like you can draw a rune on the ground with Flame Wall and it will explode, or some combo spells like mixing Ice Storm and Sparks to create a maelstrom), more skill requiring melee combat (Think Dark Souls), Some interesting things to do with Archery (Ability to Shoot three arrows at a time when activated for crowd control, a full charged bow will fire a piercing shot to go through a primary target and hit all targets behind them - that sort of thing) and other things like that, and I would happily have paid over $150 for it.
Really, it depends on the pricetag. If all games sold for a price equivalent to the amount of effort that went into creating them, then everything would be a lot cheaper and I wouldn't mind short release schedule games. As it is, everyone wants more money, so that is unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Neverhoodian]

"Welcome to Team Fortress 2. After nine years in development, hopefully it will have been worth the wait."
-Gabe Newell

Oh it was, Mr. Newell. It was indeed.

In other words, I'm willing to wait for as long as it takes. I'll take a polished title over a rushed one any day.

 

[CoL0sS]

I'd like to say "However long it takes to make a great game", but it's more like "As long as a (good) publisher would allow it". Just look at LA Noire. It took them almost 7 years and number of interventions from Rockstar Studios and the game still felt lacking. Schizophrenic, inconsistent, with characters that are either unlikable or bland and fancy new technology that has been severely overused. It's partly due to the unsatisfying, awfully-edited, abrupt ending which (like a lot of things in this game) get's resolved behind the scenes. Good riddance Team Bondi. I apologize for my little rant here. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes having all the time in the world, all the support from the publisher, and all that talent is not enough.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

brotherhood feels like Assasins creed 2.20..I felt I was playing it because I had to (for thr story) not because I wanted too

revelations is a little better..but still not as good ,their strategy seems like "add more shit to the core gameplay! just throw it on there! more! more! MORE!

assasins creed is somthing good...like a block of top-deck chocolate , but I DONT want to keep stuffing my face with chocolate because it will make me feel sick, especially if that chocolate is of lesser quality

I would need time to get hungry for chocolate agin...same with assasins creed, they need to take the time to put out somthing more polished, focus on the core gameplay, mabye try some more stealth

like the shit with recruiting assasins..ok that was good for brotherhood that was part of the story...but do I really need that in revelations? it was ok but it wasnt somthing I would miss

if they took some time to put out somthing with more polish...and that would give me time to WANT more assasins creed.....to feel excited about it again

you seem to have a serious problem with half life as well

That's a perfectly valid side to the coin too! That's why I took pains to say "to me anyway" and "as someone who blah blah blah, I disagree," because I personally like it while I know others don't. I completely see how your analogy is apt!

And I don't have a problem with Half Life itself. Assuming they've been working on it since Ep. 2, I have a problem with waiting a million years for a game in probably the next simplest genre to make besides 2D platforming; a game which will undoubtedly have a not very complicated story, gameplay or gimmick, certainly nowhere close to justifying the wait and the cliffhanger from HL2Ep2...

But then again, that too is also just one side of the coin. I see it how I do, but a lot of people will think it was worth the wait, a lot of people will be more than okay with that, and that's equally valid. Different strokes or something like that.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

About 2 and a half years seems reasonable, long enough to make you yearn for more, but recent enough that you still remember the damn thing. I wouldnt support a company that takes forever to release things though. Blizzard gets away with it because they have the most successful MMORPG in existence, and Valve actually makes games other than half life, and they run the most successful digital distribution system out there.

The longest I'd be willing to wait is a bit 5 years, anything beyond that is too long. Of course that doesnt apply if the company is having legal/financial issues (see Interplay and why there was a 10 year gap between Fallout 2 and 3), or if the studio works on several games, E.g the massive wait between Oblivion and Skyrim, but Fallout 3 was released between them

 

[redisforever]

As long as it takes to get the game done. Blizzard, Valve, and... someone else, they all take forever, and they're worth it.

 

[Vivi22]

L4D2 is a scam to charge for full price.

Ugh, I can't believe anyone says this even to this day. L4D2 was a full sequel. Yeah, it came out a year later. But everything was improved. The graphics were better, there were substantially more weapons, double the number of special infected, more variety in the crescendo moments, more variety in player strategy, more levels than in the original, and it's been updated with new campaigns and all of the levels from L4D. Honestly, anyone who still feels the need to complain about L4D2 being a proper sequel needs to lose the sense of entitlement. It was a better sequel than the majority of sequels tend to be, regardless of how long it took to develop.

My answer to the question though is as long as it takes. Don't just push out a crappy title because you have a deadline you're trying to hit. It's bad for business and bad for fans. And when it comes to sequels, sure, one year is a bit soon if you start making annual sequels like sports games or COD, but if it's a rare event and you make a sequel that is substantially better than the original in that year then go for it.

I'd like to say "However long it takes to make a great game", but it's more like "As long as a (good) publisher would allow it". Just look at LA Noire. It took them almost 7 years and number of interventions from Rockstar Studios and the game still felt lacking.

Spending more time making a game is great when it's needed and the game is in the hands of a talented, motivated, and well coordinated development team. But more time will never be a substitute for those things. I think any failure on the part of team Bondi with LA Noire can easily be chalked up to the well publicized management issues that were going on throughout, and no amount of time spent in development can ever fix management issues.

 

[Durgiun]

2-3 years is OK, 4-5 is OK if the studio knows what it's doing, 6-7 is pushing it, anything beyond pisses me off.

 

[Agayek]

It's highly dependent on the game itself and what the expectations for content/quality are. A general baseline for an average game is somewhere around 3 years. Any longer and one should start worrying just how bad it's gonna be.