David7204 wrote...
And now this is generally the part where people clumsily try and spin developers as wasteful clowns instead of people who often work 10 or 12 hour days for mediocre salaries solving problems most of the people on the BSN couldn't comprehend.
jstme wrote...
Funny thing,scewed movie tickets vs scewed video game prices comparison appear so often both in forums and outside of those that one might start suspecting there are hordes of people just contemplating whether they want to go to movies or buy a video game. In my experience it is completely false, but this theme strangely keeps popping up like some magical marketing mantra.Darth Brotarian wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Morocco Mole wrote...
Not very surprising. Development costs are going up and up and sixty dollars per game just isn't going to cut it anymore.
People will huff-'n-puff and stomp around about it regardless, but this is accurate.
Movie ticket prices and theater prices have done the same thing. I remember movie tickets being 7.00's. I'm not kidding, I actually do remember the big "General admission: 7.00" signs from my childhood in the 90's. Flash forward to today and it's like, 12.00 where I live, 10.00 for a matenee or however you spell it.
Meanwhile, games are still the same price they were 10 years ago? Something doesn't add up here.
So first - video games prices did increase during last 10 years. At least 100% increase,which is more then your movies price example Second, why don't you compare it to book prices? Or to museum ticket? Or to visit to restaurant? There are more forms of enterntainment then movies.
Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 07:41 .
David7204 wrote...
And now this is generally the part where people clumsily try and spin developers as wasteful clowns instead of people who often work 10 or 12 hour days for mediocre salaries.
Modifié par TheProtheans, 20 juillet 2013 - 07:43 .
Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 07:45 .
Guest_The Mad Hanar_*
David7204 wrote...
And now this is generally the part where people clumsily try and spin developers as wasteful clowns instead of people who often work 10 or 12 hour days for mediocre salaries solving problems most of the people on the BSN couldn't comprehend.
David7204 wrote...
Such hypocrisy. The BSN will chant 'Quality over quantity, quality over quantity' all day long. But if a developer actually worked to make an ultra-high quality game and charged the same as two mediocre games, they shriek their heads off.
David7204 wrote...
Such hypocrisy. The BSN will chant 'Quality over quantity, quality over quantity' all day long. But if a developer actually worked to make an ultra-high quality game and charged the same as two mediocre games, they shriek their heads off.
David7204 wrote...
No, they are not separate. If you want your game to look great, that takes money. If you want three dialogue options on the wheel instead of two, that takes money. If you want choices like the Rachni to lead to totally new missions, that takes money. If you want more romance, more animations, more variation in dialogue, more interrupts, more weapons, more squadmembers, more choices - that takes money.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
David7204 wrote...
Yes. It basically does. This really seems to come down to deluded players trying to deny the childishly simple fact that quality requires resources. It takes money to make a good game, period. More than what developers are getting now., if you expect the kinds of things often demanded on the BSN.
Is money a guarantee of quality? No. But a lack is a guarantee of a lack. For AAA titles, anyway.
And now this is generally the part where people clumsily try and spin developers as wasteful clowns instead of people who often work 10 or 12 hour days for mediocre salaries solving problems most of the people on the BSN couldn't comprehend.
General Slotts wrote...
David7204 wrote...
Such hypocrisy. The BSN will chant 'Quality over quantity, quality over quantity' all day long. But if a developer actually worked to make an ultra-high quality game and charged the same as two mediocre games, they shriek their heads off.
Do you actually believe the masses would actually pay for this uber game that you speak of? Me, I would it sounds sweet. But keep in mind that I spend a ****ton on games already, so maybe I'm not the best example. Also, keep in mind that Dead Space 3 was a big expensive and bland game. I hate to be the publisher that made Uber Dead Space, and had it fall flat on its face.
David7204 wrote...
You're not obligated to give them a cent.
But they're not obligated to give you a product.
And look. Which one of the of two of you is here making demands? Which party is more desperate?
welcome to 2013iakus wrote...
David7204 wrote...
No, they are not separate. If you want your game to look great, that takes money. If you want three dialogue options on the wheel instead of two, that takes money. If you want choices like the Rachni to lead to totally new missions, that takes money. If you want more romance, more animations, more variation in dialogue, more interrupts, more weapons, more squadmembers, more choices - that takes money.
Looks at rpgs from the last decade or so, ond see:
Where 4-6 options in dialogue was normal, not 2-3.
Where particular choices could open up or close off entire storylines, not just missions
Class specific quests, alignment specific quests, Heck in DAO, the entire first hour or so of the game was unique to your chosen background.
I've seen romances done better purely with text than some with cinematic cutscenes.
Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 07:55 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
David7204 wrote...
Have you studied economics? That sounds exactly like the Laffer Curve Reagen tried to pitch. Or so I've read, since that was a decade before my time.
Anyways, that's nonsense. Trying to peddle the idea that BioWare would have more dialogue with less money is stupid.
David Gaider said...
It used to be that art was the major bottleneck in our design. Now it's writing.
Why? Because words are expensive. We have separate types of word budgets, based on the costs they generate. So a "cinematic word budget" are voiced lines that require extensive touching by the cinematic design team. They have X number of people who can work Y number of hours at an average lines/hour speed. So we do the math based on the time we have allotted for the Production phase. We have a "voice budget" based on how many voiced lines we can afford to record, whether cinematic or not. Both of these numbers are smaller than the number of lines writers can actually produce.
Despite the fact that we have more cinematics and voiced lines nowadays, the word budget isn't actually new. After BG2 an effort was made to constrain the amount of writing we do, as even non-recorded lines (including text such as codex entries and journals, which also has its own budget) need to be translated into numerous
languages and also have a knock-on effect of how long a plot is (and thus how much time it takes for the level designers to implement).
Ultimately, with more money and more time the budget can be higher... but that's always the case. This isn't something we'd normally discuss since, to a fan, why wouldn't we put more money and time into a project? Hell, we'd like it too. Essentially, we need to start from somewhere, and that all starts with people much further up the chain than someone at my level.
Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 08:05 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
David7204 wrote...
Why did Mass Effect 3 only have two dialogue options instead of three? Because they limit the amount of dialogue they have in the game before they begin.
Because of money. Because it costs money to implement dialogue.David Gaider said...
It used to be that art was the major bottleneck in our design. Now it's writing.
Why? Because words are expensive. We have separate types of word budgets, based on the costs they generate. So a "cinematic word budget" are voiced lines that require extensive touching by the cinematic design team. They have X number of people who can work Y number of hours at an average lines/hour speed. So we do the math based on the time we have allotted for the Production phase. We have a "voice budget" based on how many voiced lines we can afford to record, whether cinematic or not. Both of these numbers are smaller than the number of lines writers can actually produce.
Despite the fact that we have more cinematics and voiced lines nowadays, the word budget isn't actually new. After BG2 an effort was made to constrain the amount of writing we do, as even non-recorded lines (including text such as codex entries and journals, which also has its own budget) need to be translated into numerous
languages and also have a knock-on effect of how long a plot is (and thus how much time it takes for the level designers to implement).
Ultimately, with more money and more time the budget can be higher... but that's always the case. This isn't something we'd normally discuss since, to a fan, why wouldn't we put more money and time into a project? Hell, we'd like it too. Essentially, we need to start from somewhere, and that all starts with people much further up the chain than someone at my level.
Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 08:13 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
David7204 wrote...
Or maybe they don't have money magically appearing from thin air? I really still think you've failed to grasp this simple concept - They don't have money they don't have. That's the end of it.
They don't have money they don't have.
What should they have cut from the game for dialogue? And don't say multiplayer. Given the success of it, it's very likely it subsidizes single player, not the other way around. Game budgets don't work that way anyway.
Retour en haut