development costs - http://www.mmcafe.com/ Forums

Return to site

Original message (1553 Views )

Rid

6788th Post

Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master

"development costs" , posted Sun 14 Aug 01:48

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/08/12/news_6130901.html

Specially interesting the DS costs... But why a just marginally superior system as the X-Box would justify the double of development costs? That "high end specs" comment from the CESA sounds weird.

Replies:

Zepy

1100th Post

Red Carpet Premium Member+

"Re(1):development costs" , posted Sun 14 Aug 02:44

It completely depends on the games that they sampled to get their figures, since they sampled very little data from every system aside from the PS2.

13 titles from XBox vs 196 titles from PS2? 13 high budget games from XBox and putting in the Simple 2000 series into the PS2's figures would obviously tilt the production costs in the PS2's favour.

Pollyanna

1310th Post

Red Carpet Executive Member

"Re(2):development costs" , posted Sun 14 Aug 06:11

Yeah, that's kinda pointless data. There are a lot of crappy low-budget American games for Xbox and what does "Average Development cost" mean anyway? Just because people put more money into trying to reach the Xbox's potential doesn't mean its development costs are inherently higher.

Now, it'd be different if you had to pay Microsoft more to get on their system (which isn't the case) or programming for it was more taxing or whatever, but I don't know if that's the case. The company I work(ed) for seems to have no trouble with it and they're hardly high-class.

Gojira

1810th Post

Silver Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Executive

"Re(3):development costs" , posted Sun 14 Aug 09:33

quote:
Just because people put more money into trying to reach the Xbox's potential doesn't mean its development costs are inherently higher.

That's exactly what it means though. Xbox may seem only marginally more powerful but it really is at least 2x more powerful than PS2. It's just that 2x in development terms is hard to show off; to most it's only going to look marginally better. But that doesn't change the fact it took more money to get such a result.

quote:

Now, it'd be different if you had to pay Microsoft more to get on their system (which isn't the case) or programming for it was more taxing or whatever, but I don't know if that's the case. The company I work(ed) for seems to have no trouble with it and they're hardly high-class.

The company you worked for probably still ended up paying more to make whatever than they would have to do the same on another system (unless it was just a port of some other game). It doesn't matter how easy development is; detail or quantity takes time and/or manpower, and those in turn add to development costs. Why do you think 75% of the X-Box library is just a parade of enhanced ports? Because most of the work is already done so they can just spend most of the budget getting it up to Xbox standards.

Pollyanna

1311th Post

Red Carpet Executive Member

"Re(4):development costs" , posted Sun 14 Aug 20:02

quote:

That's exactly what it means though. Xbox may seem only marginally more powerful but it really is at least 2x more powerful than PS2. It's just that 2x in development terms is hard to show off; to most it's only going to look marginally better. But that doesn't change the fact it took more money to get such a result.

The company you worked for probably still ended up paying more to make whatever than they would have to do the same on another system (unless it was just a port of some other game). It doesn't matter how easy development is; detail or quantity takes time and/or manpower, and those in turn add to development costs. Why do you think 75% of the X-Box library is just a parade of enhanced ports? Because most of the work is already done so they can just spend most of the budget getting it up to Xbox standards.

I would agree with you, but I think what you're saying only applies if developers actually achieve the vague concept of "Xbox quality." There is a fairly large number of games that aren't "Xbox quality" that are published for the system. If you're programming to the potential of the system, then you're absolutely right, the Xbox does have higher productions costs. But I think the case in reality is a bit different.

For some companies (including the one I worked for) going with Xbox was the easiest choice because Microsoft is generous with funding and development kits. Also, programming for the Xbox is very easy for people who have experience in computer programming. PS2, for relative amateurs, is a bit more tricky. (I don't know that programming for Xbox is ACTUALLY easier, but it was for the people I worked with) In our case, (and I'm sure many others) it's not a matter of doing more (more cost) as it is utilizing what the system can do (potentially less cost).

Gojira

1811th Post

Silver Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Executive

"Re(5):development costs" , posted Mon 15 Aug 09:00

quote:

I would agree with you, but I think what you're saying only applies if developers actually achieve the vague concept of "Xbox quality." There is a fairly large number of games that aren't "Xbox quality" that are published for the system. If you're programming to the potential of the system, then you're absolutely right, the Xbox does have higher productions costs. But I think the case in reality is a bit different.

For some companies (including the one I worked for) going with Xbox was the easiest choice because Microsoft is generous with funding and development kits. Also, programming for the Xbox is very easy for people who have experience in computer programming. PS2, for relative amateurs, is a bit more tricky. (I don't know that programming for Xbox is ACTUALLY easier, but it was for the people I worked with) In our case, (and I'm sure many others) it's not a matter of doing more (more cost) as it is utilizing what the system can do (potentially less cost).

You're talking about amateur startups though. Companies are only amateurs once. Experienced companies are going to make up a much larger part of the average than amateurs. In my experience, amateurs start out by building a basis to ease their own development no matter which system they choose. After that, ease of development gradually stops becoming an issue, and instead it turns into a question of quantity and quality, which is usually dictated by a system's potential.