Why do people say they don't want next-gen because more graphics = more $$?

It costs almost the same to make a game with proper good graphics than let's say a CoD game.

Crysis only had a 10 million dollar budget

Witcher and Stalker series wich are to this day still superior to every console game in the visual department are made by small east European teams with far

less budget than most western AA developers. More graphics doesn't mean more expensive games. Let that be settled.

I've wondered the same thing. The cost will not really increase that much, if at all.

Actually Crysis was $22 million :/

More graphics doesn't mean more expensive games. Let that be settled.

Kankaseni1

BTW Crysis cost 22mil

IEven if it costed 22 million. Its a fraction of what normal big titles cost to develop. And the engine was build up from total scratch.

[QUOTE="Kankaseni1"]

More graphics doesn't mean more expensive games. Let that be settled.

ferret-gamer

BTW Crysis cost 22mil

Yes, but a lot of the models and such are far too weighty for todays hardware. Developers are already creating stuff that is incapable of being run on todays consoles.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Kankaseni1"]

More graphics doesn't mean more expensive games. Let that be settled.

Heirren

BTW Crysis cost 22mil

Yes, but a lot of the models and such are far too weighty for todays hardware. Developers are already creating stuff that is incapable of being run on todays consoles.

Wow, nice fact gathering. I can say random things and try to make them seem true also.

Actually better graphics cost the least, it costs 10 cents to make skyrim and shovelware on the Wii actually costs 3000 billion dollars to make..

Durp...

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Kankaseni1"]

More graphics doesn't mean more expensive games. Let that be settled.

Heirren

BTW Crysis cost 22mil

Yes, but a lot of the models and such are far too weighty for todays hardware. Developers are already creating stuff that is incapable of being run on todays consoles.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]Actually it does. Creating more graphically advanced games requires more manpower and hours put into those tasks than creating a game that doesn't have as much emphasis on graphics. Just because there are some developers that can still excel with lower budgets does not change that fact.

BTW Crysis cost 22mil

ferret-gamer

Yes, but a lot of the models and such are far too weighty for todays hardware. Developers are already creating stuff that is incapable of being run on todays consoles.

No no, I agree. There are things that will change, but for the most part the expensive parts are sort of already in place. Look at games like Uncharted--the sound design is not going to improve much. 7.1LPC? Hopefully that is standard next gen. Out of curiousity, what in your opinion will add to the cost? The only thing I can think of would be Physics.

It is a given that games will be more expensive to make when devs make the jump to next gen.exiledsnake

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Yes, but a lot of the models and such are far too weighty for todays hardware. Developers are already creating stuff that is incapable of being run on todays consoles.

Heirren

No no, I agree. There are things that will change, but for the most part the expensive parts are sort of already in place. Look at games like Uncharted--the sound design is not going to improve much. 7.1LPC? Hopefully that is standard next gen. Out of curiousity, what in your opinion will add to the cost? The only thing I can think of would be Physics.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] I'm not really sure your point. Yes for a while now it has been common practice to create sculpts and high poly versions of a model for mapping information, but modeling the meshes is hardly the only thing involved in creating a game.ferret-gamer

No no, I agree. There are things that will change, but for the most part the expensive parts are sort of already in place. Look at games like Uncharted--the sound design is not going to improve much. 7.1LPC? Hopefully that is standard next gen. Out of curiousity, what in your opinion will add to the cost? The only thing I can think of would be Physics.

I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, this gen, don't a lot of games use the same physics engine? I think cost will actually decrease. I think we are at that turn. For example: 5 years ago it cost 7 grand to buy a DSLR capable of shooting 24p, and have it look good enough to make it into a film(skill involved of course). Today, DSLRs just over $1000 are more capable in the video dept. than the higher end models from a few years ago. I think there comes a time where production becomes cheaper. Devs already have most of the assets required to make these games.

I've wondered the same thing. The cost will not really increase that much, if at all.

Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I've wondered the same thing. The cost will not really increase that much, if at all.

Chris_Williams

It's just the way technology works. A lot of the systems are already in place. Digital cinema/photography is arguably more expensive, initially. However, once you've got the supplies it is incredibly cheaper than film. Studios already have the assets to a make games for next gen.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

I've wondered the same thing. The cost will not really increase that much, if at all.

Heirren

It's just the way technology works. A lot of the systems are already in place. Digital cinema/photography is arguably more expensive, initially. However, once you've got the supplies it is incredibly cheaper than film. Studios already have the assets to a make games for next gen.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] how do you know that?Chris_Williams

It's just the way technology works. A lot of the systems are already in place. Digital cinema/photography is arguably more expensive, initially. However, once you've got the supplies it is incredibly cheaper than film. Studios already have the assets to a make games for next gen.

I already answered that.

yes it will cost a lot more TO START WITH. As time goes by the methods and materials get faster and cheaper, therefore everything will become cheaper. Games to start with will have a higher selling point, but expect them to drop in price once they have been out for a month or so as development gets cheaper. This is how it has been through out any generation.

Did the OP say Call of Duty was not a good looking game? Wow the COD hate is ridiculous today. The COD engine is a beast.

Stalker's visuals are okay. They're not even close to games like The Witcher 2, Crysis, BF3, etc. The tech is not there. Maybe with Stalker 2.. which is left to be seen. Also the content compared to a game like Skyrim - voice actors, writers, artists, bigger core team, and more experienced developers that get paid more than those from Stalker team. Before you show me them Stalker brick textures... eh... you've seen what modders can do so that's nothing. Because a game actually takes everything for it to work... not just hi-res textures and enb series stuff.Elann2008

You talking about game content that would be there anyways, voice acting, writers, artists, etc. All would have been part of Skyrim if it looked photo-realistic or how it looks like now.

Although I do believe it brings the costs up, game engines do a lot to help streamline the process. But the real reason I believe games cost more is because you open up more possibilities for the artists and creators. I bet you a million bucks that if it wasn't for the limitations of our 5 year old consoles, Skyrim would be much more. In one of the intereviews Bethesda toyed with the idea of waiting till next gen systems if they weren't able to get the game to come close to their original plan. I am sure they left things out...

Why do Hermits blame gamers instead of developers?

The higher the graphics, the higher the development costs and lowered odds of devs taking a risk innovating and making unique games.

This is the main reason I love the Wii's library, SO many unique titles that wouldn't be available if devs didn't take a chance.

Technology and software advance, making tasks much more time efficient which opens up more time for other things. Claiming that there is a proportinal increase on graphics and cost is wrong.
What the topic starter said wasn't as stupid as some people make it out to be.

Well.... 2 generations ago games cost 40 dollars the following 50 dollars... and now 60 dollars... so games will cost 70 dollars and DLC's might cost 15 dollars instead of 10 and so on.. so by it's history i would say yes.. things will get more expensive just so they can look prettier.

also what i spend for a new console is a drop in the bucket compared to what i spend on games so it only makes sense to want next gen to start.

Well.... 2 generations ago games cost 40 dollars the following 50 dollars... and now 60 dollars... so games will cost 70 dollars and DLC's might cost 15 dollars instead of 10 and so on.. so by it's history i would say yes.. things will get more expensive just so they can look prettier.

Joedgabe

super street fighter on snes was $80 at launch. there were also plenty of expensive n64 carts.

Well.... 2 generations ago games cost 40 dollars the following 50 dollars... and now 60 dollars... so games will cost 70 dollars and DLC's might cost 15 dollars instead of 10 and so on.. so by it's history i would say yes.. things will get more expensive just so they can look prettier.

Joedgabe

Graphics on a technical level is no longer a selling point to me, because they are generally advancing in the wrong direction: photo realism. I would be highly interested in a next gen console if the games run at 60 fps instead.

If the focus is on visual effects like explosions and they include more collapsing buildings/scene I wouldn't care.

BF3 PC footage wow'ed me yes, on a technical level, but I got bored with the realistic look extremely fast. See I have realized something, graphics does matter, because they can turn me off from a game no matter how good the gameplay is.

It does increase costs, maybe not by much, but the cost will increase. Esspecially if they are making games ground up and are not using any thing from previous games.

Console games are more polished, more quality control, more time and staff hours put into them. Time is money. Also licensing fee's, the PC is a more open platform.tomarlyn

IEven if it costed 22 million. Its a fraction of what normal big titles cost to develop. And the engine was build up from total scratch.

Kankaseni1

Past tense of cost is..... cost

If english isn't your first language then I apologize, but if it is, then step away from the computer and pick up a book.

The bigger the production the more it costs.... there are exceptions... but few.

Because it does. The more advanced technology gets, the more expensive it is for the developer.

Which is just another reason i'd love for games next gen to be as this - to keep the core detail from games like Uncharted 3 and Gears of War 3, but have them run in 1080p, with 16x AF and some AA.

Clean, crisp and smooth, while having all that core detail. Honestly, games today are very, very detailed, I don't care if they get any better because they don't need to. All games now need is a little cleaning up. And with that, developers could stop focusing on graphics and more on the gameplay atmosphere and story.

I don't know if this will happen but it should.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]Console games are more polished, more quality control, more time and staff hours put into them. Time is money. Also licensing fee's, the PC is a more open platform.AutoPilotOn