I think this is why we need the Ouya...

[ScrabbitRabbit]

-snip-

No, they don't cost too much to make. The developers spend too much to make them. That's the real problem, that's why Dead Space is becoming a less viable game franchise for EA, and that's why developers are forcing those costs onto us.

It's not that the games cost too much and there's nothing devs can do about it, it's that the developers are choosing to make their games cost too much, which results in them having to give everything "broader appeal" to make it financially sound.

I believe you may be on to something. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but didn't The Witcher 2 have a budget of about $10 million or so? That was a gorgeous, enjoyable and expertly crafted game and it didn't cost anywhere near as much to make as many smaller, uglier, shorter and more linear games.

 

[clippen05]

Although I love arguing about how awesome PC is, theres already a thread on that guys.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

In short: console games cost too damn much to make [http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/].

In less short: console gaming is caught in a vicious circle. The major developers are stuck in this trend where they have to make games more like movies, with better and better graphics, and that means progressively higher costs for increasingly mediocre products.

According to that blog post I found, triple-A games and movies now have this much in common: they're about as expensive to produce. Hell, a lot of games cost upwards of $100 million at this point. It's becoming correspondingly harder for games to turn a profit; they have to at least break even within three to four weeks of release at the full $60 price, and more often than not, they don't. That's why, for example, Dead Space 3 needs to sell five million copies to keep the franchise alive [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-15-ea-aiming-for-5-million-sold-with-dead-space-3] (spoiler alert: Dead Space 1 and 2 didn't sell that many copies combined).

Games cost more and more, which means they need to sell better and better, and to do that, they need to have a "broad audience" [http://www.destructoid.com/ea-wants-dead-space-3-to-appeal-to-a-broad-audience-229567.phtml]. Translation: "We're not taking any chances. We're not going to try anything that's too 'innovative' or 'out there.' We can't fucking afford to. That might scare off the masses."

So, unless the industry crashes again, that's what we have to look forward to: a future filled with ludicrously expensive triple-A console games that all play the same, where nobody who doesn't have a budget in the hundreds of millions can get a foot in the door.

I bet a console that anybody can afford to develop for [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console] would come in handy right about now.

Actually, you can make some damn pretty games for very very cheap. Thanks to new innovations in graphic technology, you are able to get dynamic lightshafts, shaders, etc without spending a lot of manpower or time on it. In fact, in a few years great looking games will be even cheaper than they are today.

I agree, I was playing the game "Anna" today and despite it being an indie game, it had graphics better than most games nowadays. Same with Amnesia, and Audiosurf and the like. Those didn't cost as much as a normal console game to make, yet look as good or better than them.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm sorry, did indie developers suddenly drop off the Earth? Did there small budget games that can take risks and turn a profit easier suddenly vanish? No? Well did Valve stop letting indie developer use Steam to sell there games to potentially millions of customers? No? Did other marketplaces? No? Well, I guess your argument is not very good then.

The reason this console is good is because it lets developers make games for cheap on a console. It can cost a lot for a development kit and it can be hard to get one. This console is going to try and be more friendly to small developers by being cheap. That means developers have more access to a broader range of things to put there game on. They can develop them just fine now, but increasing the platforms of these small games is a good thing.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I agree, I was playing the game "Anna" today and despite it being an indie game, it had graphics better than most games nowadays. Same with Amnesia, and Audiosurf and the like. Those didn't cost as much as a normal console game to make, yet look as good or better than them.

The upcoming Xing is a great example of this: http://www.adventuregamers.com/news/view/21993

 

[Delsana]

In short: console games cost too damn much to make [http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/].

In less short: console gaming is caught in a vicious circle. The major developers are stuck in this trend where they have to make games more like movies, with better and better graphics, and that means progressively higher costs for increasingly mediocre products.

According to that blog post I found, triple-A games and movies now have this much in common: they're about as expensive to produce. Hell, a lot of games cost upwards of $100 million at this point. It's becoming correspondingly harder for games to turn a profit; they have to at least break even within three to four weeks of release at the full $60 price, and more often than not, they don't. That's why, for example, Dead Space 3 needs to sell five million copies to keep the franchise alive [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-15-ea-aiming-for-5-million-sold-with-dead-space-3] (spoiler alert: Dead Space 1 and 2 didn't sell that many copies combined).

Games cost more and more, which means they need to sell better and better, and to do that, they need to have a "broad audience" [http://www.destructoid.com/ea-wants-dead-space-3-to-appeal-to-a-broad-audience-229567.phtml]. Translation: "We're not taking any chances. We're not going to try anything that's too 'innovative' or 'out there.' We can't fucking afford to. That might scare off the masses."

So, unless the industry crashes again, that's what we have to look forward to: a future filled with ludicrously expensive triple-A console games that all play the same, where nobody who doesn't have a budget in the hundreds of millions can get a foot in the door.

I bet a console that anybody can afford to develop for [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console] would come in handy right about now.

So you want to have even more crappy games? I'd prefer real AAA titles instead.

And don't you dare try and translate what EA is saying and blame it on consoles. EA kills everything because they are TERRIBLE AT GAME DESIGN.

 

[80Maxwell08]

In short: console games cost too damn much to make [http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/].

In less short: console gaming is caught in a vicious circle. The major developers are stuck in this trend where they have to make games more like movies, with better and better graphics, and that means progressively higher costs for increasingly mediocre products.

According to that blog post I found, triple-A games and movies now have this much in common: they're about as expensive to produce. Hell, a lot of games cost upwards of $100 million at this point. It's becoming correspondingly harder for games to turn a profit; they have to at least break even within three to four weeks of release at the full $60 price, and more often than not, they don't. That's why, for example, Dead Space 3 needs to sell five million copies to keep the franchise alive [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-15-ea-aiming-for-5-million-sold-with-dead-space-3] (spoiler alert: Dead Space 1 and 2 didn't sell that many copies combined).

Games cost more and more, which means they need to sell better and better, and to do that, they need to have a "broad audience" [http://www.destructoid.com/ea-wants-dead-space-3-to-appeal-to-a-broad-audience-229567.phtml]. Translation: "We're not taking any chances. We're not going to try anything that's too 'innovative' or 'out there.' We can't fucking afford to. That might scare off the masses."

So, unless the industry crashes again, that's what we have to look forward to: a future filled with ludicrously expensive triple-A console games that all play the same, where nobody who doesn't have a budget in the hundreds of millions can get a foot in the door.

I bet a console that anybody can afford to develop for [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console] would come in handy right about now.

Actually, you can make some damn pretty games for very very cheap. Thanks to new innovations in graphic technology, you are able to get dynamic lightshafts, shaders, etc without spending a lot of manpower or time on it. In fact, in a few years great looking games will be even cheaper than they are today.

Indeed the problem is that they are spending way too much for things that aren't that expensive in the first place. For example look at The Witcher 2. Guess how much that costed to make. I've heard them say that it costed about 10-12 million to make that whole game. Considering the 4 minute CGI scene was the most expensive thing they have ever done and Brian Fargo once said on twitter that the 3 million he got from Kickstarter could extend Blizzard's CGI cutscenes by one minute I would say that lines right up pretty well.

 

[Gamer_152]

I agree with the point about the industry being stuck in a vicious cycle and many games having a problem in their production costs, but I don't see why the Ouya or any specific platform is the sole answer to that.

 

[Itchi_da_killa]

I bet a console that anybody can afford to develop for [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console] would come in handy right about now.

PC's are just that thing.

Not that I'm opposed to Ouya, mind you. I just haven't yet seen the reason we really need it yet, or what benefits to the market it really provides, so I'm not ready to hop on the hype train.

edit: After reading the Kickstarter page again, I shall upgrade my stance from Expectant Neutrality to Cautious Optimism.

I agree with you about your first point and your updated second point. The only problem I have with PC gaming is there isn't "enough" support for the use of controllers. I need to observe the Ouya after it comes out but I have been expecting to use it as an emulator for the older gen consoles as well as playing new indie games.