152
Video Games Can’t Afford to Look This Good
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
152 points (92.2% liked)
Games
39400 readers
581 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
Authorized Regular Threads
Related communities
Video games
Generic
- Gaming: Our sister community, focused on PC and console gaming. Meme are allowed.
- Cosy Games: Because not everything has to explode to make a good game
- Photo Mode: For all your screenshots needs, to share your love for games graphics.
Help and suggestions
- Tip Of My Joystick : You are searching for a game, but can't remember the name? Someone will find it for you here.
- Videogame Suggestions : Can't find a game to play in among the hundred you already own? Find another one to add to your library here.
- Patient Gamers: Gaming isn't only about having the latest great games. Good old games are there too.
Platform specific
- Linux Gaming : For everything related to gaming on Linux platform, be it on Steam Deck or Desktop Linux.
- Steam Deck : A Steam Deck specific community
Game specific
Language specific
Others
PM a mod to add your own
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.