[Grumpy Karen]

Why is games development so expensive?

A new report from Omdia highlights the reasons why development costs are skyrocketing.

www.gamedeveloper.com

In theory, it should be possible to simply stop chasing ever shinier graphics and bigger worlds, but the dynamics of the console market make it extremely difficult to break out of the graphical arms race.

Publishers must pay the platform holders 30% of their sales, but Sony and Microsoft themselves are not just exempt from this tax, but subsidized by it, giving them far greater financial wiggle room.

Moreover, developing impressive graphical showcases helps to sell their consoles, which in turn generates further revenue, fueling a virtuous cycle. Third-party publishers, on the other hand, do not benefit from any such positive feedback loop, but still cannot afford for their games to look dated compared to first-party output which sets the standard in the eyes of consumers.

Whilst this is not an especially lengthy or exhaustive answer to the question, it does outline the principle factors.

Costs of development ultimately transform to the product's SRP and its monetisation practices. So, if you have questioned the value for money you are getting from your games and are questioning their cost, this article is good reading to get a little insight into why games cost what they do.

What price are you comfortable paying for a newly-released videogame?
Are there exceptions to this? (ie: Your favourite IPs)
What suggestions do you have to lower game prices that would still allow a developer to meet current day expectations and still remain profitable?

 

[DonDonDonPata]

I read a similar breakdown for movies and music and the money thrown at marketing is insane there too. I think the problem is, once a studio/dev/whatever grows above a certain size, they change.They begin structuring their studio as if they have to cater to the Mass Market, and they increase their expenses accordingly, as if the only way to reach the Audience was to dump tens of millions into marketing. Ironically this makes them more Generic as they imitate other Mass Market products and lose the exact thing that made them special while the Mass Market absorbs it as its own and it becomes a normie trend.

The indie scene in gaming proves that wrong over and over but devs keep trying to ignore it. Vampire Survivor didn't become a hot game a few months ago because of marketing and I doubt it cost very much to make.

 

[Nikana]

Speaking as not a developer and only relaying information I have heard from Devs.

Yes, art is becoming insanely expensive. Especially given the entire economy and its insanity. Paying someone enough to be able to...you know...live...means being selective. Which is leading to the contract vs long term developer situation.

However, this is just one layer of the onion. You cant point to one area of development and say "this" is "why" games are taking longer and becoming more expensive.

 

[Hostile_18]

Thing with paying more for favorite ips (which I would absolutely do) is that it leads to me trying less new ips. Short term gain but ultimately long term loss as less people play your game.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

However, this is just one layer of the onion. You cant point to one area of development and say this is "why" games are taking longer and becoming more expensive.

I can point at one, although it's not exactly an area of "development".

It the marketing research and advisory department. Usually of the publisher, or the developer's own if it's self-published.

Everything stems from that. Everything stems from people with money on their mind saying "our market research says we need the game to have X to stand a chance of success", and having X be a cacophonous litany of buzzwords interspersed with "in order to maximize profits".

The nature of competition and the technological arms race expanding the limits of what's possible does the rest.

 

[Nikana]

I can point at one, although it's not exactly an area of "development".

It the marketing research and advisory department. Usually of the publisher, or the developer's own if it's self-published.

Everything stems from that. Everything stems from people with money on their mind saying "our market research says we need the game to have X to stand a chance of success", and having X be a cacophonous litany of buzzwords interspersed with "in order to maximize profits".

The nature of competition and the technological arms race expanding the limits of what's possible does the rest.

AKA Ubisoft development cycle.

Microsoft fell hard into this as well. Sony is in danger of falling into it with the SaaS models, however they seem to understand that some will fail and are not putting all their eggs into one SaaS.

People also dont realize how much more money it takes to run a SaaS from an asset production I am told. Chasing that Fornite money has cost them more than they have made.

 

[Grumpy Karen]

AKA Ubisoft development cycle.

Microsoft fell hard into this as well. Sony is in danger of falling into it with the SaaS models, however they seem to understand that some will fail and are not putting all their eggs into one SaaS.

There's been some feelings-driven follow up from the recent Yves Guillemot memo to staff from the other week, where he said "It's on you to deliver.." etc.

Shit-rag journalism has picked up on the feelings of the pouting workers being held to account because Boss Man Yves was a bit too REAL with his sentiments. Cue virtue-signalling, calls for strikes and Gen Z employees having breakdowns because they're not only expected to work, but to do work to a high standard.

But in more professional analysis there's been talk about the development scale and infrastructure that Ubisoft are saddled with and that they don't have a GaaS/SaaS pillar to their revenue stream to sustain it. Unlike Activision, Blizzard, EA, , Sony, Epic they don't have a single scalable IP that they can push content into to keep engagement high and monetise off the back of. And it's this hole in their portfolio that is threatening to collapse their expansive, multi-studio, staff-heavy operation.

Unless you can reliably capture lightning in a bottle (like Nintendo) and control the scale of your operation (like Nintendo) and offset costs with licence fees (Like a platform holder - such as Nintendo) then it looks like you're gonna hit a wall if you have a large infrastructure overhead and don't have an efficient content pipeline from which supplement cashflow.

Fortnight is an anomaly of an example to use as it's a zeitgeist game and Epic are getting revenue from other parts of their portfolio (Unreal Engine licencing, Epic Store subsidies) to cover costs if needed. That said, Fortnite brings in plenty of bucks on its own, and Epic's content pipeline for it is pretty lean. It's event driven more than producing whole new chapters of content requiring large investments in assets. And the assets they introduce into the game are largely ones that generate their own direct revenue anyway. Epic have held an extremely powerful position in the market due to the adoption of Unreal Engine a couple of gens ago. They are practically a platform holder due to the ubiquity of their product, and they don't have the costs of costs of manufacturing and logistics. And then, on top of that, they had Fortnite go viral for them. Very smart operators.

 

[HariSeldon]

Unless you can reliably capture lightning in a bottle (like Nintendo) and control the scale of your operation (like Nintendo) and offset costs with licence fees (Like a platform holder - such as Nintendo) then it looks like you're gonna hit a wall if you have a large infrastructure overhead and don't have an efficient content pipeline from which supplement cashflow.

The question one has to ask is how the hell Nintendo manage to reliably bottle lightning. Because they fucking do. They make some incredible games, and yes their output has been a bit slow of late but what they do put out is really fucking good. So what is it about their culture, working practices and so on that enables them to do what they do?

 

[Nikana]

There's been some feelings-driven follow up from the recent Yves Guillemot memo to staff from the other week, where he said "It's on you to deliver.." etc.

Shit-rag journalism has picked up on the feelings of the pouting workers being held to account because Boss Man Yves was a bit too REAL with his sentiments. Cue virtue-signalling, calls for strikes and Gen Z employees having breakdowns because they're not only expected to work, but to do work to a high standard.

But in more professional analysis there's been talk about the development scale and infrastructure that Ubisoft are saddled with and that they don't have a GaaS/SaaS pillar to their revenue stream to sustain it. Unlike Activision, Blizzard, EA, , Sony, Epic they don't have a single scalable IP that they can push content into to keep engagement high and monetise off the back of. And it's this hole in their portfolio that is threatening to collapse their expansive, multi-studio, staff-heavy operation.

Unless you can reliably capture lightning in a bottle (like Nintendo) and control the scale of your operation (like Nintendo) and offset costs with licence fees (Like a platform holder - such as Nintendo) then it looks like you're gonna hit a wall if you have a large infrastructure overhead and don't have an efficient content pipeline from which supplement cashflow.

Fortnight is an anomaly of an example to use as it's a zeitgeist game and Epic are getting revenue from other parts of their portfolio (Unreal Engine licencing, Epic Store subsidies) to cover costs if needed. That said, Fortnite brings in plenty of bucks on its own, and Epic's content pipeline for it is pretty lean. It's event driven more than producing whole new chapters of content requiring large investments in assets. And the assets they introduce into the game are largely ones that generate their own direct revenue anyway. Epic have held an extremely powerful position in the market due to the adoption of Unreal Engine a couple of gens ago. They are practically a platform holder due to the ubiquity of their product, and they don't have the costs of costs of manufacturing and logistics. And then, on top of that, they had Fortnite go viral for them. Very smart operators.

I know its cool to hate on epic but I agree that they are secretly, or not so secretly, the smartest people in the gaming biz right now. They have secured their position in the martket from almost every single angle. If one of their pillars falls they have so many others that you wouldn't even notice. Their capitalization of Fortnite turning into one of the biggest games ever is a story I want to know the finer details about. A book will be written someday about it and I will devour every word.

Ubisoft could have done magical things with Assassins Creed and if you would have asked me when AssCreed 3 came out if it would be one of the biggest IP in the world today, I would have said no doubt. Its such a weird company because they go through phases, much like EA did for awhile, where they read the market spot on and deliver. But when they fail they seem to fail in spectacular fashion. It amazes me how they put their foot in their mouth repeatedly when they fail as well. Microsoft has the same issue.

I will be watching Sony's moves closely as they are trying to turn Playstation into more than a gaming company. So far they seem to have executed well, but thats a situation that can go wrong extremely fast if they arent careful.

Microsoft is fascinating to watch because they still can't seem to grasp something that works for them. It feels like they finally might have a strategy they are going to stick to but we have to wait and see how their acquisitions pay out for em.

The question one has to ask is how the hell Nintendo manage to reliably bottle lightning. Because they fucking do. They make some incredible games, and yes their output has been a bit slow of late but what they do put out is really fucking good. So what is it about their culture, working practices and so on that enables them to do what they do?

Honestly, and I say this without being snarky, they seem to remember they are making games and not products. At the end of the day, a lot of modern AAA games feel like products designed to suck you dry. Whereas Nintendo games are just that. Games.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

There's been some feelings-driven follow up from the recent Yves Guillemot memo to staff from the other week, where he said "It's on you to deliver.." etc.

Shit-rag journalism has picked up on the feelings of the pouting workers being held to account because Boss Man Yves was a bit too REAL with his sentiments. Cue virtue-signalling, calls for strikes and Gen Z employees having breakdowns because they're not only expected to work, but to do work to a high standard.

But in more professional analysis there's been talk about the development scale and infrastructure that Ubisoft are saddled with and that they don't have a GaaS/SaaS pillar to their revenue stream to sustain it. Unlike Activision, Blizzard, EA, , Sony, Epic they don't have a single scalable IP that they can push content into to keep engagement high and monetise off the back of. And it's this hole in their portfolio that is threatening to collapse their expansive, multi-studio, staff-heavy operation.

Unless you can reliably capture lightning in a bottle (like Nintendo) and control the scale of your operation (like Nintendo) and offset costs with licence fees (Like a platform holder - such as Nintendo) then it looks like you're gonna hit a wall if you have a large infrastructure overhead and don't have an efficient content pipeline from which supplement cashflow.

Fortnight is an anomaly of an example to use as it's a zeitgeist game and Epic are getting revenue from other parts of their portfolio (Unreal Engine licencing, Epic Store subsidies) to cover costs if needed. That said, Fortnite brings in plenty of bucks on its own, and Epic's content pipeline for it is pretty lean. It's event driven more than producing whole new chapters of content requiring large investments in assets. And the assets they introduce into the game are largely ones that generate their own direct revenue anyway. Epic have held an extremely powerful position in the market due to the adoption of Unreal Engine a couple of gens ago. They are practically a platform holder due to the ubiquity of their product, and they don't have the costs of costs of manufacturing and logistics. And then, on top of that, they had Fortnite go viral for them. Very smart operators.

Nintendo is a superb example of proper management, in my opinion. People don't give em enough credit. They're also shouldering the added risk of hardware development and marketing. Ubisoft can casually select available platform + appropriate devs with relevant experience + asset conveyor-belt = videogame! They don't have to make hardware. We've watched how Sony and Microsoft burn billions trying to maintain 1st party exclusives and offer hardware at the same time.

I think there's a real risk of studios getting destroyed by their "unfortunate but necessary" plunge into GaaS /MMO/ whatever. Sierra Entertainment, Origin, and Blizzard all got gobbled up because their entire infrastructure was swallowed by the necessary maintenance of the cashcow, requiring a much bigger publisher (and cashflow) to keep that going. Didn't matter that the amount of money coming in was more, because they were also spending more money and diverting more manpower to maintain what they'd already built.

The MMO killed the notion of "games as a product". Arcade companies like CAPCOM were already toeing the line with endless revisions of the same game but MMOs really broke the development cycle.

 

[Night Sky]

We know why they're expensive; Too many people, no artistic direction, too much bureaucracy.

NMS and Hello Games proves that small teams can deliver top quality content, consistently, if the drive and ability to do so is there. It's time companies were allowed to fail, rather than changing revenue streams (mtx/lootboxes) to keep themselves propped up.

 

[Grumpy Karen]

I will be watching Sony's moves closely as they are trying to turn Playstation into more than a gaming company. So far they seem to have executed well, but thats a situation that can go wrong extremely fast if they arent careful.

I believe that Sony's acquisition of Bungie is very much about cementing plans to set up a sustainable pipeline for GaaS products - given what Bungie achieved with Destiny.

Honestly, and I say this without being snarky, they seem to remember they are making games and not products. At the end of the day, a lot of modern AAA games feel like products designed to suck you dry. Whereas Nintendo games are just that. Games.

Oh, I think Nintendo know they are making a commercial product.
Like any good operator, Nintendo play to their strengths and don't reveal their cards.

Aside from the quality of their product, their mystique is a huge asset to them. That whole Wizard of Oz vibe they have - where nobody outside of their operation ever reliably knows what they'll do next, or how they go about doing what they do. Curating and cultivating that image is critical to their brand. Even when they pull the curtain back a little with things like their "Iwata Asks" series - it's all entirely scripted and for show.

That they have such devotion and that, for many that "Nintendo Magic" is something they want to maintain and not see the truth of the smoke and mirrors helps them enormously. Remember how Disney stuff seemed as a kid? And how none of that magic is with them any more?

Also, and as the OP article alludes, Nintendo have largely removed themselves from the technology arms race. This is obviously to their advantage - even though we saw them struggle in the Wii U generation - it wasn't just the product, but Nintendo struggled with scaling up their operations to meet the hi-def fidelity that people now expected as standard - even from Nintendo.

But if you look into things analytically, you can see where they've turned a problem into a solution.
Got a graphically weak console? Make a game with planetoids - now you don't have to worry about lengthy draw-distance because your horizon is only 10 feet away.
Removed yourself from the tech arms race? Cool. Just make sure you never ever ever ever try to make a game where you're aiming for photorealism in your graphics (ie: God of War). Always stay bright, cartoony and simplified.

 

[Snes nes]

There's been some feelings-driven follow up from the recent Yves Guillemot memo to staff from the other week, where he said "It's on you to deliver.." etc.

Shit-rag journalism has picked up on the feelings of the pouting workers being held to account because Boss Man Yves was a bit too REAL with his sentiments. Cue virtue-signalling, calls for strikes and Gen Z employees having breakdowns because they're not only expected to work, but to do work to a high standard.

But in more professional analysis there's been talk about the development scale and infrastructure that Ubisoft are saddled with and that they don't have a GaaS/SaaS pillar to their revenue stream to sustain it. Unlike Activision, Blizzard, EA, , Sony, Epic they don't have a single scalable IP that they can push content into to keep engagement high and monetise off the back of. And it's this hole in their portfolio that is threatening to collapse their expansive, multi-studio, staff-heavy operation.

Unless you can reliably capture lightning in a bottle (like Nintendo) and control the scale of your operation (like Nintendo) and offset costs with licence fees (Like a platform holder - such as Nintendo) then it looks like you're gonna hit a wall if you have a large infrastructure overhead and don't have an efficient content pipeline from which supplement cashflow.

Fortnight is an anomaly of an example to use as it's a zeitgeist game and Epic are getting revenue from other parts of their portfolio (Unreal Engine licencing, Epic Store subsidies) to cover costs if needed. That said, Fortnite brings in plenty of bucks on its own, and Epic's content pipeline for it is pretty lean. It's event driven more than producing whole new chapters of content requiring large investments in assets. And the assets they introduce into the game are largely ones that generate their own direct revenue anyway. Epic have held an extremely powerful position in the market due to the adoption of Unreal Engine a couple of gens ago. They are practically a platform holder due to the ubiquity of their product, and they don't have the costs of costs of manufacturing and logistics. And then, on top of that, they had Fortnite go viral for them. Very smart operators.

Nintendo is the best video game company because of how smart they are and they have people like sakurai who have actually played video games before. I think thats what sets them apart is they know what makes a video game fun and memorable vs the ubisofts who just churn out crap. I am curious as to how much fortnite actually makes I would imagine it is a similar situation to say facebook where the platform in itself doesn't make money and has to rely on so many different avenues to support itself or is just a youtube kind of thing where it just breaks even.

 

[HariSeldon]

But if you look into things analytically, you can see where they've turned a problem into a solution.
Got a graphically weak console? Make a game with planetoids - now you don't have to worry about lengthy draw-distance because your horizon is only 10 feet away.
Removed yourself from the tech arms race? Cool. Just make sure you never ever ever ever try to make a game where you're aiming for photorealism in your graphics (ie: God of War). Always stay bright, cartoony and simplified.

The thing is those things aid gameplay. The visuals are far more readable than photorealistic stuff - the affordances of each object are clear, and given most of the photorealistic stuff in games is non-interactive window dressing that's a good thing. Fewer things to distract the eye allows you to focus on the game. Then there's the fact that this stuff just doesn't age. Realism ages, art doesn't.

 

[Nikana]

I believe that Sony's acquisition of Bungie is very much about cementing plans to set up a sustainable pipeline for GaaS products - given what Bungie achieved with Destiny.


Oh, I think Nintendo know they are making a commercial product.
Like any good operator, Nintendo play to their strengths and don't reveal their cards.

Aside from the quality of their product, their mystique is a huge asset to them. That whole Wizard of Oz vibe they have - where nobody outside of their operation ever reliably knows what they'll do next, or how they go about doing what they do. Curating and cultivating that image is critical to their brand. Even when they pull the curtain back a little with things like their "Iwata Asks" series - it's all entirely scripted and for show.

That they have such devotion and that, for many that "Nintendo Magic" is something they want to maintain and not see the truth of the smoke and mirrors helps them enormously. Remember how Disney stuff seemed as a kid? And how none of that magic is with them any more?

Also, and as the OP article alludes, Nintendo have largely removed themselves from the technology arms race. This is obviously to their advantage - even though we saw them struggle in the Wii U generation - it wasn't just the product, but Nintendo struggled with scaling up their operations to meet the hi-def fidelity that people now expected as standard - even from Nintendo.

But if you look into things analytically, you can see where they've turned a problem into a solution.
Got a graphically weak console? Make a game with planetoids - now you don't have to worry about lengthy draw-distance because your horizon is only 10 feet away.
Removed yourself from the tech arms race? Cool. Just make sure you never ever ever ever try to make a game where you're aiming for photorealism in your graphics (ie: God of War). Always stay bright, cartoony and simplified.

Bungie being picked up was 100 percent about their expertise in SaaS products.

I dont enitrely disagree with the Nintendo notion but I would push back in some regard. At the end of the day, yes, Nintendo is making a product that has to sell in order to be viable. But that Nintendo Magic is that personal touch that keeps them honest about what they are making. Maybe I am just drinking the kool aid too much as a Nintendo fanboy but I think you can see their passion in their projects. To me they still feel like an art first company rather than a product first company. Granted, I think you can look at the Mario movie hitting theatres this year and say they are 100 percent a brand more than anything.

Their history in the hardware realm is pretty fascinating to look at as well. The competition of the market is what created the SNES, n64 and Gamecube. Nintendo thought they needed the hardware to compete. And I think you could argue that is stifled their creativity in some ways. They almost take an indie like approach to their games now. While they do look at market trends and such, they always make sure it fits into their portfolio. Could you argue that means they know they are creating products first? Its possible, but I dont think any other company could have come up with Splatoon and have it be a mega success.

Going on a tangent so I will just say, Nintendo fucking rules yo.

 

[Snes nes]

We know why they're expensive; Too many people, no artistic direction, too much bureaucracy.

NMS and Hello Games proves that small teams can deliver top quality content, consistently, if the drive and ability to do so is there. It's time companies were allowed to fail, rather than changing revenue streams (mtx/lootboxes) to keep themselves propped up.

I think the idea of fixing something later has been used a little too frequently and the updates cost money to make so they make it back via those practices especially if its a unfinished buggy game. Its taking ten years to make a game now and I think part of that is because of inefficient management and bad budgeting (see cyberpunk or that batman game that released recently) and the fact that computers are only getting more and more complex making things that are simple concepts become much harder to make. Like some operating system like dos doing basic tasks like a calculator and in windows 11 your asked to sign into a account which takes more resources from a older computer. Old software didn't need constant internet connection but now everything needs a internet connection. And then you got the excessive stuff like denuvo which is only good enough to keep a honest man out and just makes it harder to play the games you want to play. If we remove bloat like that these older devices would actually run as this doofus demonstrates. Open source software just runs circles around these retard companies.

 

[Night Sky]

That computers are only getting more and more complex making things that are simple concepts become much harder to make

I agree with how you worded it in regards to having to log on, connect etc, which are all little chunks of added time. When people usually say that computers are more complex, they over look how complicated it was to write code and make games back in the day. The people making games needed to understand code at a genius level, which meant they could efficiently create games because they knew the work arounds.

Read on any forum (this one included) when people discuss making code, and the amount of times you can read "we made it work" or "it was crap but we made do", indicates a problem with game creation as well. People who are not top of their game are making a sloppy product that has to be refined later.

I've seen this in manufacturing, where a % of the products needed to be 'reworked' before they could be sold to customer, but that rework was costing twice as much in resources than what was gained by binning the product and making a new one. The point is, if people/QA departments are having to rework and rewrite sloppy code, you induce resource drains into the work flow, adding cost and time.

If we remove bloat like that these older devices would actually run as this doofus demonstrates.

Exactly this. Engines with bloat in them have bloat added onto them making the process and end product less efficient, meaning more work has to go in to making it better.

The industry is at fault here as well, which doubles back to the problem with too many managers and not enough artists. The industry should not have charged ahead with 4k until 1080p@120fps with all bells and whistles, became a standard practice. Games like assassins creed look prettier every year, but it is so inefficient because they haven't built the basic templates which should have been created on day 1. It means that every new AC has to have the basics built in again and again and again, adding cost.

Cut out that bloat and watch the cost of production plummet.

 

[synchronicity]

Greed, like everything else. Enough is never *enough*. Always chasing more.

 

[HE1NZ]

It's not really the shiny graphics. AAA games require a ton of CG artists, voice actors, motion capture work, sound designers, etc. Working over a long period of time. Unlike the movies where they film for 6 weeks and do post production for 6 months. I think these production values are where most of the money goes. Before 2005 when budgets balloned games would have same 3 voice actors for all characters and simple handmade animations, flat textures photographed from real buildings, stock audio.

 

[Snes nes]

I agree with how you worded it in regards to having to log on, connect etc, which are all little chunks of added time. When people usually say that computers are more complex, they over look how complicated it was to write code and make games back in the day. The people making games needed to understand code at a genius level, which meant they could efficiently create games because they knew the work arounds.

Read on any forum (this one included) when people discuss making code, and the amount of times you can read "we made it work" or "it was crap but we made do", indicates a problem with game creation as well. People who are not top of their game are making a sloppy product that has to be refined later.

I've seen this in manufacturing, where a % of the products needed to be 'reworked' before they could be sold to customer, but that rework was costing twice as much in resources than what was gained by binning the product and making a new one. The point is, if people/QA departments are having to rework and rewrite sloppy code, you induce resource drains into the work flow, adding cost and time.

Back in the 80s basic and c were used quite often vs now where you'd code in something like python or maybe your learning how to work a ui. Back in the dos days you had a simpler ui with something like turbo C, basic, and the dos command. In the 80s with those 8 bit computers everything had to be built from scratch and made in basic so people flocked to game consoles like the atari or nes due to the idea that the program just booted right up without a issue. Once 16-bit computers became mainstream and computers were able to utilize languages and more complex ui's it became easier especially after the 32-bit era with the birth of the operating system as we know it. Compare that to now where we got all these fancy engines with a nice ui, windows is locked down, frameworks, and vscode that helps speed up development a bit. Also combine that with the fact you had to buy the programs back then from a store or build it from a magazine.


Yes a big 100 gig game like tomb raider is going to be complicated to make with how many 3d models you have to use to animate the cutscenes but those old 2d pixel games on the snes like star fox or zelda or the n64 compression issue with re4 are equally impressive. The fact they had to whittle down that game to 20 megs while today we just get some 100 gig game with 10 gigs of grunt files is ridiculous.

Exactly this. Engines with bloat in them have bloat added onto them making the process and end product less efficient, meaning more work has to go in to making it better.

The industry is at fault here as well, which doubles back to the problem with too many managers and not enough artists. The industry should not have charged ahead with 4k until 1080p@120fps with all bells and whistles, became a standard practice. Games like assassins creed look prettier every year, but it is so inefficient because they haven't built the basic templates which should have been created on day 1. It means that every new AC has to have the basics built in again and again and again, adding cost.

Cut out that bloat and watch the cost of production plummet.

I blame the 4k thing on hardware manufacturers since they have to have something to get people to buy a gpu and a new resolution is a good selling point but its not the whole enchilada. I also do not believe 120fps is always feasible it was something that could've been done back in the 90s and to me games are just fine at 30 fps depending on which genre were talking about. I mean at the same time 120fps in a 2.5d game isn't going to be much to ask and but its not going to make a real difference unless its fast paced. There is the benefit of less strain on your eyes. As for assasins creed well ubisoft is incompetently ran.

 

[Grumpy Karen]

These are valid criticisms - but the question that needs to be asked ahead of each of them is: Who drives that demand for fidelity?

 

[regawdless]

These are valid criticisms - but the question that needs to be asked ahead of each of them is: Who drives that demand for fidelity?

Me. It's me.

Now let me tell you about raytracing....

 

[Snes nes]

These are valid criticisms - but the question that needs to be asked ahead of each of them is: Who drives that demand for fidelity?

everyone. You need something to sell a product 1080p was that gimmick now its 4k. The developers showed it to the masses, the masses bought it up and demanded more and more. As social media platforms like youtube and reddit expanded people became more and more critical of everything and at the same time (not entirely consumers fault) more ignorant. Now its hard to find the correct information due to those places. Devs are partly to blame for this since they encourage people to be hyped and excited with these hype trains.

https://www.youtube.com/@Maximilian_Dood/videos

The people ride it then demand for more and more. They see their niche game get resurrected and then buy four copies and weep then get excited for the next train. Again I blame the excessive marketing we have going on now. If nintendo were to release a new f-zero all the nintendo creators would be all over it making videos fantasizing what it could be. Its marketing to a young impressionable audience and it works well whether or not the youtuber actually intended to be a mechanism for it. This is the viral marketing zoomers consume and they buy into it. Delving away from it this would be best for everyone.