XI
you are not logged in
News

Durango Model Development Costs Double That Of Xbox 360

Your money will soon be (poly)gon.

An anonymous source (is there any other type?) has told GamesIndustry.Biz that the development costs for Microsoft’s next-gen console, codename Durango, are double the cost of developing for the Xbox 360.

The sharp increase in cost is due to the higher polygon counts and better textures.

“I’m having to double my budget for models,” said the source who is working on ‘a sequel to an earlier title that appeared on Xbox 360 and PS3.’

We shall just pause while you all try and work out the mystery game –  my money is on GTAV. Everyone had a think? Good, let’s continue.

So, next gen games are going to cost more to make, how will publishers recoup the costs? Well there are rumours of both Sony and Microsoft ‘locking’ a game to a console, effectively killing the pre-owned market. Subscription models such as Call Of Duty Elite may be another way to generate revenue.

Whatever happens, consumers are going to have to pay for the increased cost of game development. I doubt we will be paying £80 per title, perhaps £65 per game?

Source: GamesIndustry.Biz

Read more: # # #
57 Comments
  1. bmg_123
    Member
    Since: Feb 2012

    I’m out.

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:13.
  2. element666
    Member
    Since: Mar 2012

    I remember the mega drive days where games were 50 or 60 odd quid! i dont think people would pay that these days surely ?

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:14.
    • Youles
      Member
      Since: Feb 2011

      Well I just paid 66p for a packet of Fruit Pastilles. Given that these used to be about 26p twenty years ago, the game price hike almost seems reasonable. :(

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 17:01.
      • Forrest_01
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        Ah, another sweetie connoisseur – You me & McProley really should talk sometime. :)

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 17:47.
      • Youles
        Member
        Since: Feb 2011

        Lol, it’s meant to happen.

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 17:59.
  3. nofi
    One for all.
    Since: Forever

    Double the budget for models, half it for AI, or soundtrack, or middleware, or…

    Price will remain the same.

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:15.
    • Tuffcub
      On the naughty step.
      Since: Dec 2008

      How cna you half the soundtrack? User half an Orchestra for the Killzone 4 theme? Middleware will cost more as it’s all going to be brand new version, AI is going to HAVE to improve of the thickies of this gen.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:24.
      • nofi
        One for all.
        Since: Forever

        License half the amount of music (see: FIFA on Vita).

        Middleware won’t cost twice as much, people will just use Unreal Engine 3 for another 5 years.

        AI? We’ll see.

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:42.
  4. djhsecondnature
    Since: Forever

    Would be interesting to see the average development cost increase compared to the increase in sales over each generation.

    It’d also be interesting to know how much wastage there is in development and if there’s anything studios could do to reduce that.

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:15.
  5. samiro05
    Member
    Since: May 2010

    If a game costs £65 then there HAS to be a minimum play time of 50 hours without re-runs. Otherwise what is the point of paying for any of it.

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:17.
    • 3shirts
      Member
      Since: Aug 2008

      I know what you are getting at but it needs to be a more general increase of quality not just quantity. Take a game like Uncharted 3; I could name dozens of games that cost the same, have a longer story but are nowhere near as good.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:24.
    • Forrest_01
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      But that’s where the balance comes in – If i saw a title that would eat up that much of my time, i would be more likley to give it a miss, as i just don’t have that sort of time to put in these days.

      I am a lot happier with games around the 10-20 hr mark.

      Cost doesn’t really come into that if i am honest (from my point of view at least), as i am not paying to have a certain amount of my time occupied. I am looking for an experience that i am going to enjoy & where i see things that i simply cannot see anywhere else or that simply cannot be done anywhere else.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:29.
      • 3shirts
        Member
        Since: Aug 2008

        I see, and I agree with that. Continuing with the U3 example, I actually put a lot more time in because it was so good. I played through the single player fully 3 times as well as dipping into some levels to pick up the last trophies or just cos I enjoyed them.
        I hope we don’t get flooded with long, drawn out stories just as much as I hope we don’t just get ‘shiny shiny whizz bang shooter 57′ with even more brown gritty locations.

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:35.
      • Forrest_01
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        Yeah, that’s definitely what it’s about – Have a shorter gamespan, but much much more replayability. if a game is fun to play, you don’t mind going through it 2 or 3 times. You may even want to. Am i likely to replay an epic RPG which has eaten up 100+ hours of my life already? Not so much.

        I also agree on the variation aspect – Unfortunately though, some gamers this gen are far too reluctant to support new IP & instead just fall back onto the reliable ‘me too’ shooter (or whatever), so i think new experiences are going to be quite few & far between going forwards (we have started to see a bit of this already). More so that you or i would like it would seem!

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:23.
  6. 3shirts
    Member
    Since: Aug 2008

    I dunno, I hope they balance it with greater sales. That’s how it works for films after all. A DVD or Blu Ray of a hugely expensive blockbuster costs about the same as a much cheaper film, it is just likely to sell more.

    Gaming is already very expensive so I hope we don’t see a jump in price next gen.

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:17.
    • djhsecondnature
      Since: Forever

      This. The volume of games sold now is greater than it ever has been and surely as more people buy games the increase budget will be absorbed.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:18.
    • 3shirts
      Member
      Since: Aug 2008

      Also, look back at the likes of the Super NES. New games of the time weren’t much cheaper then than they are now. As I recall N64 games were at least £40 a pop.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:30.
      • MadBoJangles
        Member
        Since: Nov 2009

        Street Fighter 2 on the SNES was £60 if I remember rightly :)

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:54.
      • McProley
        Member
        Since: Aug 2011

        £80 for the World Warrior edition

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:01.
  7. bmg_123
    Member
    Since: Feb 2012

    Does this mean GTA 5 on this could cost $200 million?
    But seriously, one of the most disappointing games for me last year was Battlefield 3, i.e the one with the “best” graphics/sound etc. Do developers/publishers REALLY think that we all want more graphics, less gameplay? Judging by the sales figures, the answers probably yes…

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:20.
    • Forrest_01
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      I wouldn’t say BF3 has less gameplay. I still play it now & there are a few of us that play each week.

      In fact, it may even be more enjoyable since the patch. I would need another session to confirm for definite though.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:32.
      • bmg_123
        Member
        Since: Feb 2012

        Maybe, I haven’t played it for a long time now. But you have to agree, the single-player was atrocious…

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:24.
      • Forrest_01
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        Umm, pass – Never tried it. :S

        I just play the multiplayer. That’s what i bought it for & in that respect, i believe it to be a great game. I actually see the co-op & singleplayer modes as nothing but add ons/freebies that I can get around to if I feel like it one day! :)

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:51.
  8. Omac_brother
    Member
    Since: Nov 2011

    this cost will surely decrease with the development of better technology and tools to creat said models. I hope companies dont use this as an excuse for a giant price hike.

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:24.
    • Omac_brother
      Member
      Since: Nov 2011

      P.S. Perhaps this is what that AAAA Microsoft title was refering too. Massively inflated costs making them AAAA

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:26.
      • Forrest_01
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        Absolutely Astronomical Anti Aliasing

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:01.
    • Tuffcub
      On the naughty step.
      Since: Dec 2008

      Hmm lets think, when has a new generation of games been cheaper than the previous one.. or even the asme price?? Hmm… never.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:40.
      • nofi
        One for all.
        Since: Forever

        Gamecube games were cheaper than N64 games.

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 16:42.
      • bmg_123
        Member
        Since: Feb 2012

        PSVita? Some were more, but things like Little Deviants could maybe be equated to Ape Academy for psp…

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 17:15.
  9. BrendanCalls
    Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - YOHIMBÉ!!!
    Since: Forever

    I imagine that if this game is in development now then its aim is for a day one release alongside the console, and surely if your developing for a a brand new console then the development cost would tend to creep up a bit more than if you were developing for a systems that you had previously already released on.

    Also, I am totally mystified by this industry sometimes, developers are shutting down literally on a weekly basis, at least 1 big dev a month for past year, I would say, but gaming has never made so much money as proven by the TSA story a couple of weeks ago highlighting how it surpassed the movie industry in this country for the 1st time ever…where is all that money going????

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:30.
    • Workshed
      Member
      Since: Jan 2010

      The problem is that the majority of the money goes to a few already well off people *cough* activision *cough* rather than being distributed around more evenly.

      Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:33.
      • BrendanCalls
        Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - YOHIMBÉ!!!
        Since: Forever

        haha!! smooth ;-) I don’t think anyone noticed

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:35.
      • Workshed
        Member
        Since: Jan 2010

        LOL thanks ;)

        Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:47.
  10. Workshed
    Member
    Since: Jan 2010

    Are we really going to have this same story with every generation of consoles? ;)

    Seriously though, when the PS3/360 rumours were flying around i’m sure some random dev commented that it costs twice as much to develop for and then someone decides that means the games are going to be more expensive. The games will then inevitably be slightly more expensive at launch (£45) but are actually just being charged at RRP, then they’ll drop to normal levels again…

    Comment posted on 03/04/2012 at 15:32.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Latest Comments

TSA Meets

  • None today