-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Minimal development time for a game should be at least 3 years
- Thread starter klik
- Start date
- Status
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not - that's 100% bullshit.
While the OP's example are all wrong, I wish EA hadn't pushed Crysis 3 out the door with an approximately 20 month development cycle. It really, really hurt the game. Another example is Blacksite: Area 51, which was a Harvey Smith joint. The game had a 2 year development cycle as far as I can tell, but it was barely a game a year from release and the final product is a mess where, prior to patches, the final boss didn't have any AI. A very fascinating mess with some deeply subversive themes and sharp writing in place courtesy of Smith and his team, but it's an example of an FPS game basically made in a year and showing every painful scar of that rushed release because Midway pushed them from "barely working game" to "gold" almost overnight. I would love a detailed post-mortem.
The fact games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Black Ops 1/2 and so on were made on 2 year development cycles is truly amazing, IMHO. But this level of production probably required a lot of crunch and it became impractical as production values increased dramatically around 2013.
The fact games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Black Ops 1/2 and so on were made on 2 year development cycles is truly amazing, IMHO. But this level of production probably required a lot of crunch and it became impractical as production values increased dramatically around 2013.
Other than schooling, could you ever imagine dedicating your life for multiple years to create one game? Even filming on a set is only for a few months, and the rest of the year and a half is just tinkering around in studios. These games become their lives for 3 years and that blows my mind. It's borderline unhealthy imo. I know the argument is you need time in the industry to create quality, but I would honestly just rather see a year and a half cycle so these people don't end up consumed by the work.
Your thread OP would had better argument if your point that Companies are rushing in developing the product in order to fit the Annual/2 Year deadline , but sadly the point you provided regarding actual development time isn't accurate so there is few to discuss here , unless you wasn't clear enough in providing your real point
Huh? Those games stated had multiple years of development. Just because a franchise is annual doesn't infer it took a year to make, it means production started before the last one released. AC and COD have entirely different development houses working on each instalment for example. Plus, I disagree. Without these annual tentpole (especially COD, and the sports titles) the industry would certainly see a decline YoY, these are massive titles that release annually and have teams working in tandem to deliver supply where there is obviously demand to consume the content (COD is #1 selling game of the year in the US at the moment after just a month on sale). In general, I think we should actually be examining how production pipelines can be simplified to release games sooner rather than making a stipulation on how long they should take.
Most software development is like that. It's how software development works.
The most recent Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty games all take 3 years of development. And to your larger point, sure? Most AAA games seems to average 3 years in development. This isn't an argument so much as an observation of what's already pretty much the norm.
Unfortunately there's a veneration of long development cycles. A lot of people look at Half-Life 2's 6 year development cycle and see it as Valve's pursuit of perfection, when it was just plain poor project management and a lack of a cohesive vision for the game for about four years of that time. Similarly, Rockstar supposedly spending 8 years on RDR2 is seen as an example to aspire to, and not a symptom of something severely wrong with their production pipelines where hard working employees burn out working long hours on stuff that doesn't even make it into the final game because it gets tossed out and redone due to a lack of communication/coordination. (Imagine being the guys/gals who did all the cutscene camera work and blocking before the Housers decided that they wanted the game to be in 2.35:1 widescreen. Hundreds/thousands of hours of work having to be redone because it wasn't planned properly ahead of time.)
There's almost this "If my meal arrives quickly, it must be junk food" mentality with games. To use an analogy, if you order a burger and it takes half an hour between each burger, the audience seems to associate that with being the best damn burger ever, because it took so long to make. But if the burger/game arrives within 3 minutes of ordering, instead of thinking, "Oh, wow, they have a really efficient process to deliver quality burgers on a regular schedule", there's this cloud of suspicion that the burger is "rushed" and somehow subpar. The fact the burger is obviously well made with fresh ingredients doesn't matter. They assume it was made in 3 minutes. The idea that maybe they've got incredients on rotation doesn't register.
The concept of 2/3 teams working on videogame sequels in rotation to keep things fresh and also deliver a new game every year seems very difficult for a lot of people to understand.
lol no. I really think we need shorter development cycles, and I'm more than willing to sacrifice a degree of scope/interactivity/fluff/whatever to achieve it.
Also, highly impressive games can be created in 3 years, especially regarding sequels with asset reuse. Splatoon 2 came two years after the original for the original. I don't know when Smash Ultimate started development, but it was likely within the last 3 years, and that game is massive! New Vegas was also supposedly developed in something like 18 months.
Also, highly impressive games can be created in 3 years, especially regarding sequels with asset reuse. Splatoon 2 came two years after the original for the original. I don't know when Smash Ultimate started development, but it was likely within the last 3 years, and that game is massive! New Vegas was also supposedly developed in something like 18 months.
Assassin's Creed Odyssey probably was in development for 3 years. Just because it came out a year after the previous game doesn't mean it was only in development for a year. Ubisoft typically has multiple studios working on their major releases.
2/3 teams? Plebs, Ubisoft used 5-6 teams for Origins/ Odyssey and FC5
Game development rules shouldn't be dictated by people who clearly have no idea how game development works.
That's a very naive way of thinking to be honest, even though it is well intentioned. Most dev studios have shareholders...or just as bad, if you are working with a licensed I.P, license holders to answer to.
Most licensed sports titles, for instance, require an annual release as part of the contract.
They failed us first, microtransactions, lootboxes, GAAS, online only, gambling to children.
Depends entirely on the game and developer.
Just look at Turn 20 Playground.
3 phenomenal sins and 3 phenomal open world games releasing on alternating 2 year cycles.
That's incredibly impressive, especially from Playground.
Just look at Turn 20 Playground.
3 phenomenal sins and 3 phenomal open world games releasing on alternating 2 year cycles.
That's incredibly impressive, especially from Playground.
Microtransactions and the like are the publishers' choice more often than not, if not always. Games as a service aren't bad things either, it just depends on the implementation.
With the last year spend on just copy pasting everything from Origins including the whole bird mechanic?
Ubi seem to handle international development on a scale rarely seen in the industry. Most of their major releases have one or two main teams working on them. Most AC have one lead studio, while FC5 was split between Montreal and Toronto, but then there's this small army of studios across the world tasked with content creation. FC5 had a four year development cycle, so it was in development at the same time that FC: Primal was, but likely Toronto was working on FC5 while Montreal were working on Primal and once Primal was done they joined again. Occasionally the smaller studios get to make a game of their own, like Ubisoft Sofia making AC: Rogue -- which is why Rogue's soundtrack was by wonderful Sofian musician Elitsa Alexandrova. I wish Ubisoft would create more games like this. Allow individual studios around the world to leave their cultural fingerprint upon a game.
But it seems like the demands of AAA game development have forced them to get increasingly all hands on deck with more recent games. But they seem to adjusting. Skull and Bones is by Ubisoft Singapore, for example.
I remember seeing a map of AC: Origins showing how different Ubisoft studios in different countries handled different parts of the map. I imagine it's the same with Far Cry 5. There was probably an entire studio somewhere in Europe devoted to the hunting and fishing mechanics, Each of the three regions likely had a support studio attached to it, working to give each region a unique flavour.
I think "gamers with no clue telling developers what to do" came loooooong before any of that ;) And I still don't understand why games-as-Service is supposed to be bad, but maybe that is one of Era's big secrets.
I dunno why, I love GaaS, getting more of my fav game is awesome!
Exactly, even Beyond Good & Evil 2 i being developed by 3-4 different Ubisoft studios and The Division 2 will have the same treatment, Ubisoft is unique, they have 14,000 developers and all the outsourcing work it's in-house, made by Ubisoft Eastern Europe studios or Shanghai.
With you there. I'd much rather have a game that's constantly updated and supported with new content than a game that is just... Out and done and that's it.
So, in your mind, gamers buying a game once and then continuously getting new content for that game they bought (very often either completely free or being able to unlock it through playing) is bad, but having to constantly buy a new game for 60$ is good for the player? Or is another case of people having a very limited concept of what Games-as-a-Service is and not understanding that likely half of their favourite games also do it (like Witcher 3, as an example).
A few years ago, people got (rightfully) angry when a game was released and straight away abandoned to work on the sequel. Now people get angry when you keep working on and improving a game. What a time to be alive!
Same. Been playing Overwatch almost daily for over a year now with some old friends from school I rarely see in real-life, and they all keep getting new content regularly without having to pay a dime (I do buy some boxes from time to time). Works great for us.
So many things wrong in the OT. Companies have schedules, development teams, etc. I really don't understand some "gamers" if a game take forever to release is a bad thing, if a game takes "only" 2 years is a bad thing too? So the random sweet spot is 3 years in development? Nah dawg.
GaaS and online only games 'failed you'?
You're as bad as the OP when it comes to understanding how the industry works.
This is a distortion. I could easily state that Very often they are not free or are unlocked via gameplay and i would be easily right. And we could further peel this onion by stating that very often content is being designed around those extra buys, or that content is being removed from final product to be sold later as DLC, or that the game is being made from the ground up with DLC already designed into the plans from the start.
If that's the argument, we can easily jump into a lockdown and go nowhere like this.
Welp. :)
You're wrong on an infinite amount of levels with that.
Did you just forget the fact that Activision has 3 studios on cod games?
You are talking absolute rubbish. No Assassins Creed has had 1 year development time and Odyssey had 3 plus. If you have played the game you could of seen that for yourself.
I know this might blow your mind but it's possible for publishers to have different studios working on different games.....AT THE SAME TIME.
It's magic I tell ya
I know this might blow your mind but it's possible for publishers to have different studios working on different games.....AT THE SAME TIME.
It's magic I tell ya
So buying a full priced new game every time you want to play more content is okay? Instead of getting updates for a game you already purchased.
If I'm understanding you correctly. ;)
Games are expendable toys, you buy them cheap, you have your fun and then you put them / sell them and then you to the next one. GAAS is a hamster wheel that never ends. Its their so developers can cut content so they put the content later on the hamster wheel, promise content to keep the wheel going and keep publishers from killing the developer as soon as the game ships. Its a scam the developers and publishers LOVE, you can put microtransactions, online-only, lootboxes all to keep wheel turning so to keep the value of the expendable toy. GAAS is not their to add value, its a keep undeserving developers alive or until someone big absorbs them.
- Status