"Honestly? I don't care much about hardware. Nintendo games are some of the best games in the world and from a more graphical standpoint, the Wii can't do what a PS3 or 360 can do. It's about design and not so much about tech for me. Honestly, I'm more scared about what will come next than I am excited.
Once we can do Pixar-quality graphics rendered in real time with interactivity, I could see games costing $200 million to make and all of a sudden you have to sell a lot of games just to break even, so I'm a little worried someone's going to do that. Someone's going to spend... well, there are already people spending $100 million on games, that's not even insane anymore.
$200, 300 million games, I'm a little scared about that, there aren't a lot of companies that have the resources or the courage to spend that much. So my gut's in a bit of a knot about that but whatever comes along I'll just make games that work on that platform, I don't think about hardware too much. I think the power of the platforms is outstripping the size of the audience.
We can't charge $150 for a game. And when the best-selling game of all time has sold only 20 million copies, at $60, do the math! If you're spending $200 million on a game and you're making $60 on 20 million copies sold, oh wait, you're losing money if you're the best-selling game of all time basically, right?
I don't know how the business works anymore, that's the problem. It already takes three years to take a game, when all of a sudden creating assets at an even higher level of quality and animations that are even a higher level of quality, I don't know how we're going to do it. We'll figure it out but right now I'm content where I am." - Warren Spector
The more I hear from Spector, the more I like him! I think it's good that we have this guy on our side!
link
Once we can do Pixar-quality graphics rendered in real time with interactivity, I could see games costing $200 million to make and all of a sudden you have to sell a lot of games just to break even, so I'm a little worried someone's going to do that. Someone's going to spend... well, there are already people spending $100 million on games, that's not even insane anymore.
$200, 300 million games, I'm a little scared about that, there aren't a lot of companies that have the resources or the courage to spend that much. So my gut's in a bit of a knot about that but whatever comes along I'll just make games that work on that platform, I don't think about hardware too much. I think the power of the platforms is outstripping the size of the audience.
We can't charge $150 for a game. And when the best-selling game of all time has sold only 20 million copies, at $60, do the math! If you're spending $200 million on a game and you're making $60 on 20 million copies sold, oh wait, you're losing money if you're the best-selling game of all time basically, right?
I don't know how the business works anymore, that's the problem. It already takes three years to take a game, when all of a sudden creating assets at an even higher level of quality and animations that are even a higher level of quality, I don't know how we're going to do it. We'll figure it out but right now I'm content where I am." - Warren Spector
The more I hear from Spector, the more I like him! I think it's good that we have this guy on our side!
link
RSS Feeds:
This guy knows what's up. So many developers focus on forward tech, without even bothering to design a solid foundation for their game...
I only spend 8 dollars to see a movie that cost $300M to make. and I only spend 20$ on the blu-ray disc.
You want your titles to have long appeal, and going to war with your customers is not how to do it. Flex pricing, digital release of smaller titles to increase margins, flex pricing, etc, these are the thing that will set you free.
I've been hearing 'the rising cost of development will put us out of business' for going on 15 years now. It hasn't. No one is forcing companies to over spend on development budgets on every game. But customers are generally not willing to spend 60$ on these blockbuster games over and over again(especially when they last for 10 hours), so they turned to the more economical path of trading in and buying used. More companies need to embrace the "AA" and "A" space, charge 30$ for a "AA" game, and more people will buy that used. or price it at 60, and they will still pay 30$ for it when they can get it used or on sale in a month.
And that's how things work. Its not just about power man. You have to think about the development ease.
And the wii u will never become lead platform. Which do you think is cheaper developing for wii u than porting it or developing the PC/720 and porting it.
Why do you think 360 was the lead platform and its games usaually looked better. It was easy to develop for and was able to use directX making development easier.
The Wii U will never be lead program for most games for obvious reasons.
Well said friend. Like I've said many times before the AA is going going to become PSN/Wiiware/Xbla
Just to Na.e a few games that hits that border already.
Shadow Complex
Bloodforge
Alan Wake's American Nightmare
Section 8 prejudice
So he's positive about Nintendo and he brings up great points...
We should bake this guy a cake. He deserves it.
@shingi70 Uhh...wut? Look back at the ps2/ps1. They where the lead development platforms because they where the weakest ones. The 360 was the lead development platform for ps3/360 games because the ps3 was difficult to program for.
<3 Warren Spector! ^_^
Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two is my most anticipated game so far. Can't wait to return to the Wastleand.
@LegendofSantiago
And during those Ezra's most of the devs weren't western Pc devs used to using directX right.
Easier to have 360/720 as lead platform as it shares a lot with the Pc version. And with xbox live for windows 8 coming up you bet Microsoft is going to play that up to developers.
I hope his off-the-cuff figures were incorrect, because developers need to do a reality check if $1.2 billion is not considered an incredible payback on an investment of $200 million. Even Bernie Madoff never promised a five-year turnaround THAT good.
i still don't understand how big companies can allow their expenses to spiral out of control so wildly. Small teams of 5-30 people can often create a much better game than a team of 300. If tomorrow all games dropped pre-rendered CGI intros and cut-scenes, bad voice acting, ultra-realism, motion capture setups, astronomically priced ad spots, executive perks, full orchestra soundtracks, and multiplayer-for-every-title mandates, there would probably be two results. #1: Budgets would be cut in half. And #2: Games wouldn't be any less fun to play. Artistically, they'd probably be better since a lot of the stuff that developers waste money on ends up being cringeworthy.
that had ZERO to do with why everyone switched over to PS development. they did it because Sony had better terms for 3rd parties than nintendo. They were friendlier to them with licensing deals, the CD format was sooooo much cheaper and arguably better for the games they wanted to put out.
their power had nothing to do with it. nothing. the ps2 just carried the ps1 momentum forward(and had a massive, and very quick to #1 install base due to the popularity of the PS brand and the DVD player). power didn't enter into the equation.
The ps4 and 720 will be very similar. they will both basically be DX11 boxes. shovel, their gpus might even end up coming from the same chip family (both will probably be AMD gpus.) same with WiiU. CPU core count and ram amount will probably be the biggest differentiators.
This is a man I can get behind!
@gtt
Sony uses openGL iirc.
And even though they are likely too be similar we don't really know anything. Microsoft has more room than Sony to build a powerful console and its been rumored the next box will come in two amuse. One a proper console and the other one a Romulus with xbla.
People said this about the Wii. That the Wii would have the most third party support because of the cost. Didn't pan out did it? And with cheap downloadable games becoming the norm there's no reason to support the weakest since you can develop cheap downloadable games on the most expensive console as well.
Yep. I don't understand why studios or even many gamers expect this of every game that comes out. VVVVVV managed to be entertaining and challenging with the most basic graphics--not to mention visually appealing with its color scheme (and the 3DS port is just gorgeous). Kirby's Return to Dream Land managed to have one of the best soundtracks in its series despite that several of its songs sounded not too far removed from Kirby 64 or even Kirby's Dream Land 3. It's not that hard to find a newly released game that's as good as or better than the high budget games despite their "diminished" specs--and it's not as if video games have suddenly become entertaining with the introduction of HD graphics.
I usually like what Spector has to say, and I see he's still someone I agree with. That's certainly something that makes me knit my brow. I'm glad people in the industry see it too.
@LegendofSantiago
I had never thought of it that way. That would be smart and convenient.
@MisterOpinionHead The attachment to publishers and the current model of business is what needs to get an axe taken to. They need to wake up that NO ONE who actually pays attention to their money will buy their games new for 60 and never trade a single one in somewhere for more funds to another game. It's unsustainable by nature, if ever got their way with no used games, you can kiss high prices goodbye, or games completely.
Something is going to give in that mindset of resisting thoughtful change to what the value of your product is. It doesn't matter that 200 million were spent creating a game if it comes out a turd, now you have turd value, deal with it. Or don't risk the high investments next time.
I think this guy is absolutely correct. It's funny, I've heard him and several other developers mention time and time again that they aren't liking where games are going and I have to completely agree with them. As games become more graphically demanding they'll become more and more linear and shorter. We've seen this happen with this generation already where quality RPG's we were expecting to be big traded out big amazing environments and exploration with a ton of cutscenes and the world basically became a straight line..... Looking at you FFXIII.
Generally when talking about DX, people mean the feature set, not the exact api. I'm still gonna bet that the ps4 and 720 will be about the same box. I imagine that they will use a hex-core powerpc chip, 2-4GB ram, and a Southern Islands family GPU.
I would be shocked, honestly shocked if they are very much different from each other, hardware wise.
@kdognumba1 This.
Heck. Xenoblade and Lost Odyssey shovel all over FFXIII for me, personally!
see this is what i expect of next gen a lot of developers are not even aware of the money sink hole they are going in
Spector kind of scares me. He works in the video game industry, and knows what he's talking about. It's just unnatural.
I'm surprised few developers have this ideology... I'm guessing developers are too obsessed with graphical fidelity and high production costs to care?
@BrandonD
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought Spector's math skills could use some work...
@BrandonD
I noticed that too when I first read this post. Something just didn't feel right about his numbers; however, with current trends of software sells on the HD platforms and if developers actually did make the full $60 on games, they'd need to sell 3.33 million copies just to break even. Only five games on the PS3 fulfill that requirement, but developers don't make the full $60 so it would take more than 3.33 million. Thankfully, costs haven't pushed that threshold yet, but I see the concern.
We can't charge $150 for a game. And when the best-selling game of all time has sold only 20 million copies, at $60, do the math! If you're spending $200 million on a game and you're making $60 on 20 million copies sold, oh wait, you're losing money if you're the best-selling game of all time basically, right?
$60*20 000 000 = $1 200 000 000... problem?
that's retail cost. so lets do math! publishers get something like 18$ per copy sold to retailers(using a general 30% figure). so say a title cost 200million to make, they would need to sell about 11.2 million copies to break even. so at 20 million copies that game still makes money.
View the full discussion!