Lionhead head boss Peter Molyneux has likened development of big-budget games to Hollywood of past and questioned how much longer the current development model of such titles can be sustained.
"...there's a lot of things that we could talk about, and one of the things that you talk about is the sustainability of these huge, huge titles, and how close this model is, at the moment, with what happened in the movie studios when they stumbled upon the Cecil B. DeMille blockbuster - Quo Vadis, Cleopatra, all that", Molyneux has said in an interview with GamaSutra.
"And they suddenly turned from making films that cost five million dollars, into making films that cost a hundred million dollars. And that caused all the small studios to just completely shutter, for a long time, until they found a new way of working. You know, where everyone came together.
"And I think you could look at this industry and say, 'How much longer can we sustain this model?' We only need to have a couple of big, big losses - we've probably already had a couple already, under the radar. I can think of a couple off the top of my head."
"When someone turns around and says 'I think there's got to be a better way of doing this'. I do wonder about that", he said.
It must be tough being a small developer & having to have your game stand up against giants like MGS4, GTA4, Gears of War 2, with companys that have almost endless budgets. I remember hearing that MGS4 has cost something like 10 million to make?!??....
This is coming from a guy who makes 1 game every 5 years with a massive budget with little to no return
Massive budget? You must be kidding? Lionhead didn't have those sort of resources. It was so bad that they had to rush the majority of their games out just to stay afloat. Add to the fact they make only a couple of games every 5 years and you have alot of pressure of good ole Peter's shoulders. Now that MS have bought them, they can work without that pressure and try and create the game he wants rather than get half way there and have to compromise. Finally, how can you say they have little to no return when the vast majority of his games are well over million sellers?
It's true games cost a lot of money to make these days, in the region of $20-$40 Million for a blockbuster, and if you are selling to a hardcore audience it's going to be very difficult to turn a profit.
This is one reason why everyone is using UE3, it may cost a lot of money upfront to buy a license, but it saves a huge amount and time in the long run.
We're al;ready seeing a huge increase in middleware development, and I think this will increase much further in the future, with only a handful of companies creating their own engines.
well this is kind of what i suggested was happening a few weeks ago in terms of budget and financing and was shouted down by people telling me that independent developers can easily stay independent and that they don't need to affiliate themselves with publishers like EA or MS etc etc. Funny how some of you in one breath scream for independent developers then mock the output of 2 games every 5 years.
Peter M is one of the most creative and clever heads of studio in the industry trying to create games that aren't like anything else we play rather than making a FPS everytime in 12 month intervals. That's the creativity you say you want which isn't easy.
It isn't of course just about dev costs but marketing costs which can also run into millions. Ok your publisher (if you can get one) will stump up some cash but as people are suggesting cutting out the publisher that is another cost to the developer... so not always good or possible.
So before people decide that all publisher buyouts are "bad" perhaps you should consider the option that without the buyout the chance of those developers still being in existence in 5 years time is pretty slim. There will be exceptions but mainly because they have a big already developed franchise... a cash cow thet keeps them afloat... launching new IP without a publisher backing you financially and hoping to make money must be virtually impossible.
Firstly, nearly every review talked about 'dated graphics', secondly, when compared against Crysis, what PC game isn't 'retro' to some degree? Thirdly, one thing that makes a AAA game usually is high hardware demands - like Crysis and Far Cry 2 and Supreme Commander, etc. The Witcher, STALKER and others could be called 'retro' to a degree, because although looking 'good enough' most reviewers said they could have looked 'better' and they ran on average PC's rather than needed uber machines.
So retro may not be the exact right word, but in terms of any game that runs on an average PC, comes from a smaller publisher and has gameplay first and graphics second, I wouldn't think of them as AAA games. Because to me any big budget AAA title on PC is likely to be shallow, have little replayability and be to demanding in system requirements for what it gives you.
Tbh I found that Stalker ran like an absolute pig and was probably the most buggy unpolished game ive ever owned, however it is still a brilliant game and I look forward to clear sky.
Also The Witcher was my game of 2007 absoultely fantastic.
But anyway I'd say I had to turn down just as many settings in Stalker as I did in Crysis so either GSC did a bad job or Crytek did a good one. I dont have a slouch of a PC either 8800, CD2 ect ect.
As for which is better it depends what your after, the combat of Crysis is alot better than Stalkers however Stalker has a much better story and immersion and is more RPG-esque in a way.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
