ilnadmy
12-02-2006, 11:55 PM
http://pc.ign.com/articles/748/748707p1.html
December 1, 2006 - In a recent Q & A session with GamesIndustry.biz, Alain Tascan, general manager at EA Montreal claims that the cost of making games has become "crazy" in recent years. He predicts that this rapid increase in development costs can only result in a restructuring of business models.
During the session, Tascan indicated that this shift would likely occur soon, saying: "I'm not sure that the model we have here will be the model in 15 years, and that the EA you know today will be the EA you know then. I'm sure we'll do things differently, just because of the cost. The cost of games now is crazy."
The interviewer then challenged Tascan by asking him whether it is the fault of larger game companies such as EA for driving up the cost of game development. To this, Tascan replied, "I think a lot of other companies are spending even more money. It's people who want that, it's not EA per se," he protested. "I said to some of the guys here, 'The gamer is not buying lines of code; you have to promise him enough entertainment for him to put his hand in his pocket and buy the game.' It's a lot of money, so you need to give him a show, and we're just here to deliver the show."
Tascan proceeded to harangue the public for its misconception that EA always employs huge development teams, pointing out the standard 35-85 staff members on an EA Montreal-developed game. "We take more time. It's a different approach that they let us do… Small is beautiful," he added.
Tascan finished up the Q & A session by citing the various possibilities still left for smaller games companies who might otherwise be pushed out of the industry because of skyrocketing costs. "I think there are other ways to consume entertainment today - mobile phones, casual games... Games that take a shorter amount of your time are something where a smaller company can really have fun."
So even EA is concerned with the rising cost of game development. I wonder if this will lead in the future to more episodic games, in the style of Half Life 2 Episode 1, 2, etc... I personally don't think episodic games are the way to go, but they do seem like they would drive development costs down, since you would develop one engine basically, and then just add new levels, story, characters, etc... for each episode.
I would still prefer an entire game, where you just shell out $50 for an entire package, without having to wait for the next episode to be released in order to get to the end of the story.
It's interesting to note though that while console games have gone up to $60 a pop, PC games are still at $50. I wonder if that's because development costs haven't risen as much on PC, or if it's because developers are wary of raising costs of PC games (perhaps they're even making their profit off the console games, and are willing to make a little less on the PC side).
Knowing this though, it's not surprising why developers are crazy about the Wii. Lower graphics capabilities means lower development costs, not to mention huge demand for the system. Nintendo might be the trailblazer in this regard.
Still, this does raise a few concerns about where the industry is headed, and whether new developers will have a chance at breaking into the big-time or whether they'll be relegated to indie, low-budget cellphone/handheld games.
December 1, 2006 - In a recent Q & A session with GamesIndustry.biz, Alain Tascan, general manager at EA Montreal claims that the cost of making games has become "crazy" in recent years. He predicts that this rapid increase in development costs can only result in a restructuring of business models.
During the session, Tascan indicated that this shift would likely occur soon, saying: "I'm not sure that the model we have here will be the model in 15 years, and that the EA you know today will be the EA you know then. I'm sure we'll do things differently, just because of the cost. The cost of games now is crazy."
The interviewer then challenged Tascan by asking him whether it is the fault of larger game companies such as EA for driving up the cost of game development. To this, Tascan replied, "I think a lot of other companies are spending even more money. It's people who want that, it's not EA per se," he protested. "I said to some of the guys here, 'The gamer is not buying lines of code; you have to promise him enough entertainment for him to put his hand in his pocket and buy the game.' It's a lot of money, so you need to give him a show, and we're just here to deliver the show."
Tascan proceeded to harangue the public for its misconception that EA always employs huge development teams, pointing out the standard 35-85 staff members on an EA Montreal-developed game. "We take more time. It's a different approach that they let us do… Small is beautiful," he added.
Tascan finished up the Q & A session by citing the various possibilities still left for smaller games companies who might otherwise be pushed out of the industry because of skyrocketing costs. "I think there are other ways to consume entertainment today - mobile phones, casual games... Games that take a shorter amount of your time are something where a smaller company can really have fun."
So even EA is concerned with the rising cost of game development. I wonder if this will lead in the future to more episodic games, in the style of Half Life 2 Episode 1, 2, etc... I personally don't think episodic games are the way to go, but they do seem like they would drive development costs down, since you would develop one engine basically, and then just add new levels, story, characters, etc... for each episode.
I would still prefer an entire game, where you just shell out $50 for an entire package, without having to wait for the next episode to be released in order to get to the end of the story.
It's interesting to note though that while console games have gone up to $60 a pop, PC games are still at $50. I wonder if that's because development costs haven't risen as much on PC, or if it's because developers are wary of raising costs of PC games (perhaps they're even making their profit off the console games, and are willing to make a little less on the PC side).
Knowing this though, it's not surprising why developers are crazy about the Wii. Lower graphics capabilities means lower development costs, not to mention huge demand for the system. Nintendo might be the trailblazer in this regard.
Still, this does raise a few concerns about where the industry is headed, and whether new developers will have a chance at breaking into the big-time or whether they'll be relegated to indie, low-budget cellphone/handheld games.