Dev Times as Long as Console Life?

Development times for a single game are getting larger and larger. Games can take anywhere from 5 years to make now, even so long that a company has to turn it over to a next-gen system and go back to square one, provided they're starting up the game in the middle of a console's life span.

System life spans seem to be getting smaller. The PS2 is about 3 years (?) old, and already Sony is talking of PS3 in...dang...was it 2004 or 2005? That would make a system that's 5-6 years old. Would MS follow suit and release a new console? Who even knows how long Nintendo can feasibly keep the GC alive (they say 8-10 years, which would be nice, but...)?

So if console lifespans get trimmed and dev times are going up, do you think there will ever be a problem with games actually coming out for a system generation it was inteded for?

I can forsee the problem arising, but only on a small level. I think the time is eventually going to come when gamers and developers will voice their disinterest in hardware development overkill (which is what seems to be going on at the moment, and will probably only get worse), because what good is a bunch of new machines on the horizon so soon, when the machines already out haven't even had the chance to develop a decent library of games or be maxxed out performance wise by developers?

We play games...not systems. Hopefully hardware manufacturers will eventually realise that, because if they don't, their ignorance will soon bite them in their collective rears, in the form of disgruntled and upset gamers and games developers.

I concur with Black Arts Viper. The only thing I'd like to add is that dev times aren't actually getting longer. Infact more companies are becoming more schedule/money conscience these days. 99% of all games that take 4-5 years do not "make" money. Most are "problem" projects that eventually get wrapped up and shoved out the door. I could go into more details but it'd bore you.

Eyes and ears from the inside :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Arts Viper
We play games...not systems. Hopefully hardware manufacturers will eventually realise that, because if they don't, their ignorance will soon bite them in their collective rears, in the form of disgruntled and upset gamers and games developers.

---

We may play games and not systems, but not so with many of those in the mainstream- where the real $$ is made. Just look at all those folks who opted out of the DC because the "God-like" emotion engine was coming in a year. (Of course, I am baffled as to why the XBox is not killing PS2 on there grounds, but...)

With the ever decreasing console life spans, yes, I could see games taking longer to develop than a console has been out on the market. I hate this trend more than anything. Sony plans on releasing a new system in 2005, which would make for a good 6 years of the Playstation 2 being on the market. The idiots at Microsoft however seem to be rather set on beating them to the punch with a new console, despite the fact that it would make their Xbox less than 4 years old...

Quote:

---

(Of course, I am baffled as to why the XBox is not killing PS2 on there grounds, but...)

---

I don't think they waited for the PS2 simply because of graphics, I think it was just because it was another Playstation.

*agrees with Mr. Furious*

The companies that do take 5 years to develop a game will either have their accountants screaming at them sooner or later for taking so long, or they'll wise up before they reach that point. Depending on the financial resources of a company, gigantic development shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zerodash

We may play games and not systems, but not so with many of those in the mainstream - where the real $$ is made. Just look at all those folks who opted out of the DC because the "God-like" emotion engine was coming in a year. (Of course, I am baffled as to why the XBox is not killing PS2 on there grounds, but...)

---

Good point...the mainstream do often make or break a system. I'd disagree that people opted out on the DC because they felt the PS2 would be "god like" in comparison, though...I think they were just stupid enough to buy into Sony's "PS2 is cool" marketing hype and the "allure" of the Playstation brand name. Brand name and image have a disturbingly big effect on some folks...sigh.

Actually, all of you are wrong. Companies that take years to push games out the door end up getting bought for $400 million by struggling newcomers to the console market.

That's why PC games are usually better ;) They don't have to "re-invent the camera" everytime they want to make a new game... not as much at least. iD software, Blizzard, Bethesda and Lionhead take thier time... fortunately for Xbox is that it is easily translated from PC to the 'Box.

ºTracer
Release Date: "When it's done."

Quote:

---

Release Date: "When it's done."

---

Heh, I think the day id announces a game and doesn't give it's release date as "When it's done" will be the day I quit gaming.

I don't see many investors being happy with a company giving a release date of "when it's done" to key titles. In fact, some might accuse them of managing their earnings. (Not that companies don't manage their earnings already...)

I wouldn't say PC games necessarily benefit from the longer development cycles. Games are often released buggy as hell.

And I don't see console life spans shrinking. The DC is an exception. The other consoles seem to on track for a typical console life span.

I don't see Lionhead or iD software giving a damn about investors. Activision, MS and EA will care perchance (EA for sure... it's a good reason why Molyneux has nothing to do with Bullfrog anymore. EA killed the soul of that dev house, he and other Bullfrogers made Lionhead and thier satilites Big Blue Box and Intrepid... their games have no release date. Not BC, not The Movies and not Fable aka Project Ego).

With Blizzard and iD it's pretty much money in the bank for them when they DO release thier games. ID simply makes thier money easily from liceneing thier game engines.

ºTracer

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
I wouldn't say PC games necessarily benefit from the longer development cycles. Games are often released buggy as hell.

---

*coughcoughDaikatanacoughcough*

DC failed because Sega burned too many bridges with developers and consumers alike.

The last system Sega made endure was the Genesis. Anyone remember the Sega CD? How bout 32X? How bout Saturn? DC, although it was an excellent system, was a lost cause from the start (even though I still did/do support it heavily).

The DC was perhaps the best effort Sega ever gave - it WAS doomed from the start, but it still gave a hell of a ride while it lasted.

NeoZ: Few rules ever prove to be absolute... games can suffer from it as it has been shown, but games can benefit from it too. So long as the teams are organized well and they have a good developing environment the time spent it well worth it. Sure it's a risk, but the worlds finest games come from risks. Good films cannot m\be made in 6mo. - a year... good games aren't made in moments notice.

ºTracer

The ride is still continuing...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zerodash
Of course, I am baffled as to why the XBox is not killing PS2 on there grounds, but...

---

Because it doesn't have some "blast processing" marketing buzzword for what's in the box. If they advertised it had "Hypermation Technology" they'd sell alot more.

True, very true.

ºTracer