You hear it every generation. "Games are more expensive to make now!", "Games are taking longer to make!", "We can't afford as many games as we used to!", "Game Development is unsustainable!". This has been a problem in the industry for a while. It's true that production costs for high-end, AAA experiences are getting larger and larger, and thus growing fewer in numbers. But I think the whole "Games cost too much to make" argument is ignoring the bigger picture here.
Now it's true that game development isn't a walk in the park generally speaking. That's true no matter the era. However, what the argument of increased production costs ignores is that not every game has to be this massive AAA, open world/battle royale experience. Development costs for any given game depends entirely on the ambition level of the project, and how much money and staff you'll need to achieve that in a reasonable time frame. You only need to look at the indie scene to see that you don't need cutting edge graphics or massive open worlds to make a good game.
Another problem with this argument is that consoles are getting more powerful yes, but they're also getting much easier to develop for as well. This lowers the barrier of entry for many devs, which means less time needed to get an engine up and running. That, combined with the excellent middleware tools available today, means that what once needed a budget of $20 million and a team of 100 in the PS2 or 360 days, can now be done by studios with half that number or less, and still look better as well. And I'm not saying that indie games haven't gotten more expensive to make in recent years, what I'm saying is that the increase in costs for indie games are still nowhere near the astronomical levels of AAA game development.
It's easy to say that AAA games are too expensive to make, and that is true. But companies adapt and accommodate accordingly, they're not going to sit there with no games, they'll diversify what they invest in, and maintain a steady release flow. As much as I hate EA, I'll give them credit where credit is do, they have one of the better setups to accommodate for increased development costs as a third party publisher. You have their main EA and EA Sports labels for AAA productions, and you have an EA Originals label for smaller, independently developed games and AA projects. If anything, more major third parties should follow the setup of companies like EA or Take Two. Platform holders also know this, which is why they've been making it as easy as possible for developers to make high quality games, even with smaller resources for years.
Now it's true that game development isn't a walk in the park generally speaking. That's true no matter the era. However, what the argument of increased production costs ignores is that not every game has to be this massive AAA, open world/battle royale experience. Development costs for any given game depends entirely on the ambition level of the project, and how much money and staff you'll need to achieve that in a reasonable time frame. You only need to look at the indie scene to see that you don't need cutting edge graphics or massive open worlds to make a good game.
Another problem with this argument is that consoles are getting more powerful yes, but they're also getting much easier to develop for as well. This lowers the barrier of entry for many devs, which means less time needed to get an engine up and running. That, combined with the excellent middleware tools available today, means that what once needed a budget of $20 million and a team of 100 in the PS2 or 360 days, can now be done by studios with half that number or less, and still look better as well. And I'm not saying that indie games haven't gotten more expensive to make in recent years, what I'm saying is that the increase in costs for indie games are still nowhere near the astronomical levels of AAA game development.
It's easy to say that AAA games are too expensive to make, and that is true. But companies adapt and accommodate accordingly, they're not going to sit there with no games, they'll diversify what they invest in, and maintain a steady release flow. As much as I hate EA, I'll give them credit where credit is do, they have one of the better setups to accommodate for increased development costs as a third party publisher. You have their main EA and EA Sports labels for AAA productions, and you have an EA Originals label for smaller, independently developed games and AA projects. If anything, more major third parties should follow the setup of companies like EA or Take Two. Platform holders also know this, which is why they've been making it as easy as possible for developers to make high quality games, even with smaller resources for years.
