Classicgamer wrote:
...It also ignores a crucial and far more important aspect of the video games financial model. I.e. That they also make more profit per game now. They are not spending more with the expectation of making less...
A popular console now sells over 100,000,000 units giving them twice as many potential customers as they had in the Snes era.
The cost of manufacturing each game has gone down considerably. Disc's cost a tiny fraction of what carts cost to make and now, game downloads have overtaken physical media sales on the PS4. Meanwhile the retail price of games has remained the same.
Actually that "blog" lends credibility to your assertion that the "
cost per byte" to develop games decreased exponentially from 1985 to around 2004. However, since then it has plateaued. Assuming this data set is representative of the real DATA (which we cannot), then the evidence suggests games are cheaper to develop per byte compared to pre 2004, but not since. True, the market for game and console sales is larger than ever. This is why the
Developer cost per MB is trending downward (more evidence in your favor). So potential rewards are larger, which in turn justifies larger budgets. But it also increases the stakes. Also note that the data is skewed in recent years by the emergence of Mobile and indie. These have smaller budgets and represent more of the industry now. Mobile has the largest market share (
source), with consoles next and PC trailing. AAA and AA console games are not getting cheaper to make and market
[1][2]. That makes them more risky endeavors, especially now that there are more affordable options for making money (indie/mobile). This dilutes the talent pool of available developers and might help explain where innovation in the console market went.
Classicgamer wrote:That blog is hardly definitive proof that it costs more to make a game for the PS4 than for the PS3 or PS2.
He only had data from 250 games (since 1980) out of hundreds of thousands and even then, his inflation adjusted numbers show costs to be relatively flat since the 3d games era started. There are a handful of outliers but that only proves that you can spend more, not that you have to.
Did you know the word "proof" is taboo in science. The reason is because there is very little that can actually be proven. Evidence is the word you're looking for. Note, the graphs of
development costs over time that look "flat" on that "blog" are logarithmic in the y -axis. That's how you transform an exponential relationship to apply a regression line (to extrapolate future costs). That relatively flat line represents an exponential increase in the cost of games (about 10x every decade). Assuming this data set is accurate (which we cannot), then the evidence suggests games are 10x more expensive to develop now than they were when the "cost per byte" plateaued. The potential to sell more copies could conceivably make up the difference, but the plateau in "cost/byte" eats into those margins. Unless the game is a hit, they are getting less profitable. Either way, they're more risky to develop. The AAA $ trends action/Shooter because these are the most popular/profitable genera respectively in the largest demographic (adults). And while microtransactions and digital sales are encroaching, physical releases still hold the
majority of market share. Moreover, there are a minimum number of people required to complete a game, and that number increases with more complex graphics. You have to pay them! AAA is expensive/risky. So they stick to the formula, not much innovation. AA is less expensive to develop, but you still have to market it aggressively. And marketing budgets often rival AAA development costs. That's very hit or miss, perhaps even more risky that AAA. Indie doesn't have alot to spend, but the complexity of the game is the trade off.
Classicgamer wrote:So, the argument that increasing game development costs is an acceptable excuse for the lack of innovation is BS.
I agree with that sentiment, and indie agrees too. That argument doesn't mean the same thing to executives of a for profit company. They would argue that these are fiscal realities that have to be dealt with. Sacrifices have to be made and the industry is constantly changing. You can't please everyone and frankly, very few companies can afford to take risks. They only care about their target market, the cash cows, and sure things - which leaves many of us hanging out to dry. That's not to say there isn't good content out there, it's just less diverse. And IMO that reflects changes in the industry more so than in market taste. Mobile/indie have have raided the developer pool of talent and bigger companies, who can afford to develop the mid-range (~$50 million) console games, won't take the risk as often now as they would have in the 90s (my opinion).
Classicgamer wrote:Steamflogger Boss wrote:Games that are boring to you. There are plenty of people that think gaming is better than it has ever been and think old games are lame.
But that aside, you are wrong on the financial stuff, games are extremely expensive to make now.
Based on what? If you are claiming that the cost of making games is going up, we need to see proof.
I.e. Show us supporting data with a credible explanation as to why making PS4 games is fundamentally less financially efficient than making the same game on the PS3.
So these data sets are never going to show a perfect correlation. Even if they did, correlation is not causation. So yeah, this DATA doesn't "prove" anything. But it's more than speculation, and that's what you asked for.
BTW: I don't think you're a troll. You make some important points and I respect that, but I currently disagree with you. Cited above is why. And you're not wrong to ask for people to backup their position. DATA changes and opinions should be informed by facts...frequently;)