Is the US game industry pricing itself into oblivion ? Given that so many games are coming from countries other than the US is there really any point in trying to design games in the US that require at least a $1 million budget simply to make it to store shelves ?
In short, yes.
Because to be able to develop a game that is equal to the quality of the titles coming out of the “powerhouses” of the industry you’ve got to have a large sum of money.
Of course there are exceptions, but they seem to be getting more rare.
I wouldn’t necessarily say this is a bad thing for the gamer though, the aspiring developer – certainly – but the gamer, no.
It’s like the movie industry. You want quality production values? Then you’ve got to go to a major studio.
You want art-house niche? Anyone can do it. Even overseas.
You want ILM to the FX, Hans Zimmer to write the music, and A-List actors to star, you gotta be a corporate entertainment giant and you gotta spend the bucks.
Games are turning out to be the same thing. MS and EA can plow dollars into development that very few companies can match.
Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends on your POV.
How robust can an independent gaming scene be, analogous to independent cinema?
Graphically, I guess you just can’t get the same results on a shoestring. One advantage of cinema is that people still look like people even if you shoot them with a crappy digital video camera. (Though it won’t look as good as a professional movie, usually.) In computer games, you have to draw everything, animate everything, create textures, etc. It’s a big job.
Design-wise, it seems possible to do pretty deep games with just a couple of people. Jeff Vogel’s RPG’s are comparable in plot depth/complexity/size to any of the big-studio RPG’s.
The more that engines can be farmed out and art can be available for designers to use at their leisure, the more perhaps there will be a rising standard of graphics even for shoestring games – though of course there might also be a generic look to them all.
Does anyone know how much Age Of Mythology cost to develop ? Would I be close if I said US$3-5 million ?
I don’t know for sure, but if they used all of Ensemble for two years to make it, you’re low by at least half.
That’s just dev costs. Now factor in a Marketing Budget, plus Ops costs, Manufacturing, Distribution. . .
Tony Goodman told me, including internal playtesters, they had 60 people working on AoM for much of its cycle. That’s costly, especially when you note how many Ensemble people are well-respected developers (a lot of these guys aren’t “just outta school”):
Tony Goodman
Bruce Shelley
Greg Street
Ian Fischer
Rob Fermier
Sandy Peterson
Paul Jaquays
(insert name of whomever I’m forgetting)
EDIT: Don’t forget, in terms of marketing they’ve released the soundtrack on CD and put AOM trailers in movie houses. That ain’t cheap!
That would mean at least $10 million … oh my god … !!
Well AOM certainly has quality stamped all over it and fantastic gameplay.
Did you ever check to see how much the AOE series made? Pre-sims, it was one of the biggest sellers each year and raked in money.
Of course I would be called just a flag waving patriot to point out the inherent slant in your question. Considering quite a few of the major publishers are non-american, maybe next time you can pause from the bashing and try and rephrase the question to not show your ignorance? Or do you mean to tell me, crocodile dundee or yahoo serious also have a game studio in Australia and are creating great games on a shoe string budget?
Chet
I wonder if Ensemble is sweating a little bit… They only got to #5 this week on the top 10 PC games list:
http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=11142002-71549
Aom should do fairly well (at least we hope), but if it departs from the top 10 pretty quickly then Ensemble has to be deeply dissapointed.
Also… There are people that I’ve talked to that do not like this game at all. They say that it’s rehashed AoE, only with better graphics.
I disagree though.
I think we’re getting to the point where games from independent developers can compete. Look at games like StarShatter, They Came From Hollywood and Static. They might not be able to compete head to head with games like UT’03 in terms of graphics, but they still look pretty damn good compared to a lot of the stuff you find on shelves. I think the really successful independent developers are the ones not trying to compete with the likes of EA and Activition. You don’t usually see independent film makers trying to make a movie like Men In Black 2 or Terminator 3, they generally do movies that have a stronger focus on elements typically ignored by the big boys (quality dialog, strange/unique subject matter etc). Ok, I’m making a broad generalization but you get the point :)
In my opinion the biggest problem with independent games(and movies) is actually hearing about them in the first place.
I’m sure this is a very ignorant statement on my part, but I’ll say it anyways :) I havn’t checked out AoM yet because I thought it was just AoE with a different setting, and I was never a fan of the series.
Am I completely wrong?
yeah american devs spend alot of money, but make the same game… there hasn’t been one game from america thats been remotely original (except maybe morrowind/nolf 2 - the AI-) the past year. I think this hit driven console ideal of sales is the bane of all pc gaming… imo… but yeah, its okay to make money okay? i dont mind them making money… but lets make games that show some innovation! and when i say america i dont include canada… which does come out with some innovations (like NWN!). Yeah you can make the same game for a lot of money and still get a great game… but its all the same thing. yeah, i ramble tonite.
etc
Yes.
They added too many new concepts, the way the three different sides play, the Myth units, the new tactical considerations, the God Powers, etc., The game looks like AOK and to an extent plays like AOK but anyone who says it’s “Warmed over AOK” just hasn’t played the game yet.
Sort of like how you could tell a bad review of Civ3 by looking to see if they said, at any point, it played just like Civ2. It’s only like the previous game on the surface.
Mind you, I think its safe to say that if AOK didn’t win you over. AOM probably won’t either.
Mind you, I think its safe to say that if AOK didn’t win you over. AOM probably won’t either.
I couldn’t disagree more. AoE/AoK didn’t win me over. AoM did.
AoE/AoK always felt a bit dry to me. I think AoM has much more spirit, personality, flexibility, range, whatever. Let’s just say it’s more fun. I can completely see people who didn’t care for AoK really digging on AoM.
-Tom
I think you read way too much into my statement Chet. I was not implying any anti-American sentiment in that post. As I stated to Brad Grenz a week or two ago I have jumped off that bandwagon. If you want to get all huffy and puffy then by all means go ahead - I won’t be listening.
I second that disagreement. I am with Chick here. I played AoK for a couple of weeks and put it away. I love AoM.
There are plenty of other threads here that talk of the improvements and differences. In my case, the setting is one of the important differences. Sufficed to say, Ensemble changed this luke warm RTS’ers mind with AoM.
Bah, you just didn’t give AOK a chance Ty.
Though I do admit, AOM has a lot more personality and is a lot more fun. If the only reason you didn’t like AOK was for personality/fun reasons, AOM will win you over. Otherwise, I think it’s safe to say that if AOK didn’t win you over, AOM won’t either. Unless you’re looking for personality and fun. And cyclopses.
[size=2]
And edible Walrusi.[/size]
The use of myth units and god powers has really opened up the game. It allows for some interesting decisions to be made whether to hold off on using a god power until the midgame or endgame.
But I also loved AOK. Simply because of the unit formations and the ability to fight large neatly ordered battles.
(Damn - I have hijacked my own thread - does every discussion here lead to Age Of Mythology ? :) )
God I love BF:1942.