Making “revolutionary tech” for their games has meant id Software’s development cycles have been too long, says the company’s Todd Hollenshead.
just dont go activision short
Or EA sports short.
I don't mind Activision short. I get a fresh game every year (albeit I don't like the non-modern warfare stuff) and it still packs quality. That said, 7-years for Rage is a long time even if that includes research time for the engine. That's got to cost some serious dough and he missed out on almost this entire generation. Releasing this October of all times too. How about releasing it now! It's pretty dry right now on game releases. edit: I expected the sort of response below. I actually like new campaigns and spec ops mode. Can't wait for MW3, but haters gonna hate.
"I don't mind Activision short. I get a fresh game every year (albeit I don't like the non-modern warfare stuff) and it still packs quality. " This sentence is comedy gold.
fresh game :S how on earth is call of duty fresh? Are you drunk? They've been running off the same Quake engine for quite a number of years now.... I think it's time for some innovation
MW is fun, I just hope they do it right this time not like MW2. I have yet to play a perfect shooter, the closest I have seen to perfect (for MP) would be CS:S, CoD 2/MW1, and Halo 3. The guns in CoD have a very nice feel to them that a lot of other developers are simply incapable of bothering to get right - they go: "ok, a bullet happened; add some random recoil angle and publish the game like that"... basically. If MW3 is properly made unlike MW2 (BO doesn't count caus it's Gayarch, of course it's bad) then it will be a great game. Still though, The CoD series has never had a "fresh game every year"... Did 2 come out a year after 1? That is the only time there were 2 consecutive good CoD games.
I hardly say 7 years is a development timeframe. Game engine research doesn't count in my view. Game was in development for about 3-4 years of that at most. 1 year development = crap/mediocre. If you step away for a few years though you can see an improvement or two. 2 years = great game 3-5 years = near perfection. 5+ = questionable. Likely will collapse on itself due to high expectations. Hello DNF. :P
They spent too long developing the tech. A lot more money too than if they were just making the game. The idea behind making a great engine like that is to see if you can license it out as middleware to other developers to make their games with. Now because they timed it wrong, they may take a big hit no matter how popular the game is. Next gen is right around the corner and they will need to make a lot of updates to the engine to get it up to par.
The problem with the development cycle these days is that there is so much that has to be done to keep the quality up to scratch with any individual game that it has to be built uppon a large-scale engine. Last gen and the gen before that, the game and the "engine" could be built up together for small developers - the costs of development these days are massive and the amount of work to be done is extremely vast, if the graphics (rendering, artistic asset quality, environment detail/quality - 3 very time consuming and expensive things) of a console game are bad people just won't buy it; so all that money spent on it is a total waste and the big development cycle was time wasted. Most of the tech released around this time in the lifecycle is already capable of using next-gen techniques (because the high end PCs are an example platform for next-gen consoles). The only real differences between this gen and next, in terms of tech, is the newer Direct X and OpenGL APIs; all the other changes are just more powerful hardware - no huge technological breakthroughs like programmable shaders were this gen. In short, developers have no choice to focus on perfecting the engine because of how complicated game applications have been getting of recent.
That's why next gen should be more like an upgrade of what we have now, this is the HD gen, lets leave it a that by the next one, not saying I don't want better and more powerful stuff to make games great, but be reasonable, if it can't be done without rising the development costs and such things, better not go that further...
The ideal situation is to use middleware tools developed by a company that primarily concentrates on making those tools. They handle all the special effects you see in games and frees up the developers to only worry about art assets (which is what takes most of the time now) and design. If the developers continue to advance the tools they are using (which they are doing in major ways) to ease development, the cycles should stay where they are. 2-3 years.
This game took 7 years to develop because of the consoles. As a PC title it should've came out 2 or 3 years ago. This is telling because Carmack envisioned an open world shooter shortly after making Doom 3, and soon after he was beaten to the punch by Crytek's Farcry and Crysis...both of which are PC only games while he continue to slave away on his multiplat mega texture project. In short the long development is Id's own fault.
not too long not too short, I'd say 2-3 years is about right depending on the genre
Call of duty is in development for two years then it is finished and sent out for us to beta test after paying $60.
You say beta test but the state that COD is in is actually way more polished than other Betas out there. You are paying 60$ for a game that was rushed out the door. A beta would imply they are still working on it to finish it. I never see the COD issues fixed.
This article... and this article http://n4g.com/news/820985/... id make up your mind.
That article is about extended console cycles. This article is about id's internal development cycles. Two different subjects...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.