• ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Alright, not like for like exactly, and at 34M, we’re stretching the definition of shoestring. I’ll bet KC:D’s sequel spent far more, for one. I’m with you that more of these studios ought to be aiming for reasonable fidelity in a game that can be made cheaply, but when each of those studios took more than 5 years to build their sequels, that becomes more and more unlikely.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      34 mil is nothing when you start looking at the cost of some of these other games, even Skyrim was over 100 million. Like GTA5, with marketing, was like 250 million. Just insanely expensive, and I guarantee you the devs are not pulling in a mil or two a year.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s true, and I’d certainly like to see some of these studios try to target making many games at that budget than a single game at ten times that every 7 or 8 years, but even these “cheaper” games you listed still take a long time to make, and I think that’s the problem to be solved. Games came out at a really rapid clip 20-25 years ago, where you’d often get 3 games in a series 3 years in a row. We can argue about the relative quality of those games compared to what people make now and how much crunch was involved, but if the typical game is taking more than 3 years to make, that still says to me that maybe their ambitions got out of hand. The time involved in making a game is what balloons a lot of these budgets, and whereas you could sell 3 full-priced games 3 years in a row back in the day, now you’re selling 1 every 6 years, and you need to sell way, way more of them to make the math work out.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Games had a lot less in them as well though, but even then games still took time. OoT, one of the biggest RPGs, released in 98, two 1/2 years of dev time. Games still required time, maybe less, but they also had less in them.

          • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’d make that trade, easily. More often I find games these days are too long to their own detriment than that they felt like they ought to be that long. Your mileage may vary on a game by game basis, but in general, that’s how it’s been lately.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              When I say less, I mean as in assets and things to do. Side quests alone in a lot of games these days are damn near as many hours as the main story is.