DirectX10 Preview W/ Farcry demo

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

People are stupid.  They buy stupid things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

uh huh, you speaking from experience I assume .

[Judge Hades]

I am a person am I not, though I do wonder sometimes.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Judge Hades

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I am a person am I not, though I do wonder sometimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're a person? I thought you was just a troll rising to the concious level of the internet and a totally ficticious character.

[Arkan]

But all this tech brings a significant problem, games are going to end up costing the same to produce as a hollywood film and that means only giants like EA or Microsoft will be able to finance games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How so, what is so exclusive about code?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Did you read the post you quoted?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I wasnt talkig about Dx10 specificly, I was talking about how the demand for more and more advanced graphics put greater pressure on the developers.

[Morgoth]

If noone would dream, no progress would ever be made.

Agreed.

 

But all this tech brings a significant problem, games are going to end up costing the same to produce as a hollywood film and that means only giants like EA or Microsoft will be able to finance games.

This is basically not true. It's just that the Big boys like EA, MS etc. want to scare out the smaller development houses with saying nonsense like "Games are gonna cost 30 Millions+ USD!!!". That's probably true for EA, who only rely on production values, but no substance.

Smaller development houses like Piranha Bytes or Epic use cutting edge technology, but make enormous games and can keep the costs still relatively low. A Piranha Bytes with ~20 peoples who don't need to have a Ferrari for each employee obviously can put the ressources more into more productive tools, rather than a 150 people EA team that puts it's money into licenses and supermodels. And although there's still too much emphasis on graphics today, better technology also means more productive (art) tools and better standards. I just got used to work with ZBrush, which is a 2D/3D hybrid-sculpt-software, and it's incredible how fast and accurate you can create models, textures etc. with it. So, surely people get more demanding in the graphics department, but the tools also get better and better.

And as long as I see small dev's like PB able to do ambitious games with cutting technology and as long as I see a community that buys such games, there's no real fear that only EA type like companies will rule the gaming market. There's always some place for the creative ones..... because those are the ones who actually bring some progress into this industry - they're inevitable. Even the big boys must understand that.

[Judge Hades]

I am a person am I not, though I do wonder sometimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're a person? I thought you was just a troll rising to the concious level of the internet and a totally ficticious character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That could be a possibility as well. Hmm... I better chek into this.

[Kaftan Barlast]

But all this tech brings a significant problem, games are going to end up costing the same to produce as a hollywood film and that means only giants like EA or Microsoft will be able to finance games.

This is basically not true. It's just that the Big boys like EA, MS etc. want to scare out the smaller development houses with saying nonsense like "Games are gonna cost 30 Millions+ USD!!!". That's probably true for EA, who only rely on production values, but no substance.

Smaller development houses like Piranha Bytes or Epic use cutting edge technology, but make enormous games and can keep the costs still relatively low. A Piranha Bytes with ~20 peoples who don't need to have a Ferrari for each employee obviously can put the ressources more into more productive tools, rather than a 150 people EA team that puts it's money into licenses and supermodels. And although there's still too much emphasis on graphics today, better technology also means more productive (art) tools and better standards. I just got used to work with ZBrush, which is a 2D/3D hybrid-sculpt-software, and it's incredible how fast and accurate you can create models, textures etc. with it. So, surely people get more demanding in the graphics department, but the tools also get better and better.

And as long as I see small dev's like PB able to do ambitious games with cutting technology and as long as I see a community that buys such games, there's no real fear that only EA type like companies will rule the gaming market. There's always some place for the creative ones..... because those are the ones who actually bring some progress into this industry - they're inevitable. Even the big boys must understand that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But fact is that production costs are increasing paralell to the technical evolution. Its not just the technolgy that drives it though, a large part of it is things like voiceovers or motion capture that cant be done without proffessional outside help. Its also true that companies like EA are intentionally pushing the cost of game production in order to eliminate competition from smaller companies.

 

But cutting egde technology takes time, expert skills and money to implement into a game. There are very few companies out there with the skill and resources to program a top of the line engine. The DirectX 10 API'swill make it a bit easier but at the same time its gong to make the public expect and demand top of the line graphics which puts pressure on small developers.

 

 

Sure, you can buy an engine but that is very expensive (I hear the U3engine license will cost something like 1.5million dollars) and unless youre making a straghforward FPS, youre going to have big trouble adapting it to your game.

[Morgoth]

But fact is that production costs are increasing paralell to the technical evolution. Its not just the technolgy that drives it though, a large part of it is things like voiceovers or motion capture that cant be done without proffessional outside help. Its also true that companies like EA are intentionally pushing the cost of game production in order to eliminate competition from smaller companies.

Voice overs surely cost a bit, but you don't need to hire some rave-kings or a Madonna to speak some silly lines, and good voice actors are able to imitate more characters anyway. I think Gothic2 used only ~10 voice actors, but still did pretty well. Don't ask me how much voice actors Outcast used - those Talans were all the same, but that didn't break the mood. Dreamfall uses by far more (~50 different voice actors. You can read Ragnar's rants here: http://www.ragnartornquist.com), but it's still rather a smaller, independent project. FFv3R was mostly spoken by the devs themself, and somehow it worked.

 

Anyway, there's no deny the costs rise, but with some good organizing skills and other "creative solutions" it's still possible for smaller, independent devs to stay on track with quality and quantity of voice overs.

 

But cutting egde technology takes time, expert skills and money to implement into a game. There are very few companies out there with the skill and resources to program a top of the line engine. The DirectX 10 API'swill make it a bit easier but at the same time its gong to make the public expect and demand top of the line graphics which puts pressure on small developers.

 

Gothic 3 won't be cutting edge when it comes out, but people still will buy it. Smaller devs like Irrational games don't use the UE3, instead they're using Gamebryo (FFv3R) or their modified UT2004 Engine (SWAT4, Bioshock) and still are around. Those devs are known to deliver substance, not some silly talk about shiny Parralax Mapping/Pixel Shader 3.0 etc. a'la Bethesda, and the community knows that. As long as you keep the team small, organize the costs smart, and build your fundament onto your strenghts, you don't need to have 2 million sold copies to stay alive.

 

Just look what happend to IonStorm/DXIW: Nice engine, nice (useless) shadows and all, but they forgot their strenght, their roots. They screwed their fans, and now they're dead.

 

Sure, you can buy an engine but that is very expensive (I hear the U3engine license will cost something like 1.5million dollars) and unless youre making a straghforward FPS, youre going to have big trouble adapting it to your game.

Not sure about that 1.5 million USD (last I heard it was only 500k, but that might have been changed now), but I heard Unreal Technology was always known for being very adaptable.

Bio and Obsidian are using this technology too, and I don't think they're going to make an UT2007 clone.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Morgoth