Ranma1 (User)

  • Contributor
  • 4 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 46240
""

PS4 doomed to have only few games? Worrying trend

Ranma1 | 292d ago
User blog

PlayStation has a library of 2,418 games and PS2 had 3870 games. It took $5-$10 million to develop a PS2 game versus $0.8 million-$1.7 million for the original PlayStation [source: sciencedirect] . In June 2009 Ubisoft reiterated that major titles for PS3/X360 cost $20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may exceed $60 million [source:edge-online].

It is common sense that there is a direct correlation between game costs and games made. It cost 2.5 times as much to make a PS3 game than a PS2 on average. Similarly we can see the consequence of this reflected in the graphs below since 4 times less games have been made for PS3 than PS2.

If it will cost twice as much to make a PS4 game than a PS3 according to Ubisoft, then following the same logic I expect about 2 times less PS4 games to be made than PS3, here is why (based on extrapolation), though other factors such as install base is considered.

Worrying trend? Rainbow Six Vegas for example has this budget breakdown: 30% - Programming. 20% - Art. 15% - Design. 10% - Marketing. 8% - Testing. 7% - Sound. 7% - Animation. 2% - Management. 1% - Other. This gen art, design & animation will cost much more

One certainty though is that the higher the install base the more the games will be made and then development cost becomes less relevant. Which is evident with the PS1 vs PS2. So even with higher development costs for PS2 than PS1, still more PS2 games were made since 50 million more PS2's were sold. Hence Sony can solve this potential problem by selling more PS4's, but i doubt the PS4 will sell that much higher than the PS2.

To conclude, if the PS4 does have only 400 games. Gamers must ask themselves, is better graphics worth it...in exchange for less games? One may say quality over quantity, but there is also evidence that even the length it takes to complete games is decreasing as well, they are becoming shorter (I will leave that for another post).

SilentNegotiator  +   292d ago
Not worried. Things will even out as indies show big AAA publishers how it's done. Plenty of great looking games without massive budgets.
thereapersson  +   292d ago
Agreed, I think the indie push that Sony is banking on will make up for the lower numbers of big-budget titles from the larger studios. Some of the best games last gen were indie games, and most of the titles that were on the PS2 / PSone could pass as indie games today. With the tech we have in the PS4, anything is possible.
Curzed1   290d ago | Spam
mp1289  +   288d ago
I own about 20 ps3 games. That a lot, but honestly im still missing a lot of big titles. Sometimes I even worried that Sony oversaturated the console, because even if the games are good we cant buy them all. So no, im not worried about there being few titles on the ps4 because there won't be.
Ranma1  +   292d ago
Also in this list I did not include indie games.

Of course more games is better I think because of more competition and choice.

The only way I see sony addressing this issue is selling more PS4's than PS2's.

As is evident, even though PS2 cost more, it still had more games than PS1 but thats because PS2 had 50 million higher install base
#1.2 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
SilentNegotiator  +   292d ago
What we need is variety. Everyone is trying to make the next best shooter or F2P MMO and it isn't working.

One of the 7th gen's best sellers was Minecraft. That game is nothing like a shooter and yet big publishers are still convinced that the only means of doing well is with a DRM-ready, multiplayer-equipped game.
Ranma1  +   292d ago
@SilentNegotiator

Minecraft is an excellent example. Its also on 360. But doesn't it seem like people have bigger expectations for PS4 & PS3 games than mine craft graphics.

And peoples expectation is the main issue why those type of games with less attention on the graphics do not get made for consoles?

Is it peoples expectation or developers assumed expectations of what people want? I am not sure, whats your opinion?
SilentNegotiator  +   292d ago
There's nothing wrong with 50 million dollar megablockbusters and people are going to demand the best from those, which is why there's an early emphasis on what the 8th gen consoles are capable of.

Like I said, it's about variety. Between those megablockbusters, there's plenty of room for unique middleware and low budget games.
Ps4Console  +   291d ago
Yeah but you don't want just Indie if you wanted just Indie games then why upgrade to a Ps4 should have just stayed with PS3 .
#1.2.4 (Edited 291d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
SilentNegotiator  +   291d ago
First of all, no one said anything about "just" indie games. Second, indie games don't automatically mean weak graphics, so no, even if a person wanted just indie games, that doesn't mean they would never need bother to upgrade.
mattdillahunty  +   291d ago
another thing that plagued last gen (and looks to plague this gen as well) is the abundance of sequels. since games to cost much more to make nowadays, developers and publishers need to go with what works, and making a sequel to a hit game is far less financially risky than a brand new IP (unless it's a 100% awesome studio like Naughty Dog or Valve).

it really sucks, because i'm getting tired of every other damn game nowadays being a sequel. just because a game is awesome doesn't mean i need to play another version of it...and another...and another. but if people keep buying them, then they'll keep making them.
Hitman0769  +   291d ago
I agree with Silent Negotiator on this.
Godmars290  +   292d ago
How doesn't this apply to the XB1 as well if not more so? Given that MS *still* doesn't have proven 1st party support, relies more on 3rd, and where even forced to restructure how they deal with indie studios after burning a lot of bridges.

Think you've only shown that focusing on AAA gaming was an overall bad idea. What console need to do is return back towards middleware production, which apparently ran over to PC.
Ps4Console  +   291d ago
Why do we have a new console then ?
Hitman0769  +   291d ago
Microsoft is publishing Zoo Tycoon, Quantum Break, Powerstar Golf, Killer Instinct, Loco Cycle, RYSE, Forza 5, Xbox Fitness, Project Spark, Max: The Curse of the Brotherhood, Kinect Sports Rivals, Halo: Spartan Assault, Below, D4, Fable Legends, Minecraft: Xbox ONE Edition, Sunset Overdrive, and Halo 5. (All announced and confirmed). These may not be 1st party developed, but I think it's safe to say Xbox ONE has games, and whether or not we like them or consider them valid "proven" support is an entirely different debate my good friend.
nosferatuzodd  +   290d ago
Same can be said Sony has 13 studio each has 2 teams working on game and to say ps3 has less game is just stupid if ps 3 has less games how comes it still has way more exclusive than Xbox 360 you guys kinder forget about the gaming company you're criticizing this is Sony we"re talking about you're argument is invalid
#2.2.1 (Edited 290d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Hitman0769  +   290d ago
@nosferatuzodd I never criticized Sony. I love the fact they actually own many studios and develop tons of 1st party stuff and are intimately involved. I was simply stating the reality of MS having games they publish.
MidnytRain  +   291d ago
Lol, what does MS have to do with this?
Godmars290  +   289d ago
May as well ask what the game gen has to do with this. If you're talking about AAA games bolstered and bloated by indie titles, you might as well be talking about PC gaming as well.
#2.3.1 (Edited 289d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
BitbyDeath  +   292d ago
Wouldn't it cost less since a lot less time will be spent making the games?

Time is money and all that.

Related image(s)
Ranma1  +   292d ago
Please explain this. What is this?

p.s ubisoft says: "PS3/X360 cost $20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may exceed $60 million [source:edge-online]"
#3.1 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
SilentNegotiator  +   292d ago
That's just porting time.
BitbyDeath  +   292d ago
Here's a quote, this isn't just ports as can be seen below-

"Cerny cited a concept he called "time-to-triangle," which he described as the time required to code graphical systems at a level the hardware's capable of, essentially analogous to how long it takes to create the base for games that match the hardware's graphical power."

http://www.joystiq.com/2013...
Pandamobile  +   292d ago
Time to triangle is a horrible metric for gauging development time.

Yeah, it's easier to get going for the first time on PS4 than it was on PS3, but that's a one time fixed unit of time that never really occurs after the first few months of the console cycle.
Fairchild Channel F  +   292d ago
The leap from PS2 to PS3 was substantial. Online was new. HD was new, etc. The leap from PS3 to PS4 however is not. If a company is doubling their design costs (in this case Ubisoft as the example) then they're doing it wrong. They're mismanaging money.
Nicaragua  +   292d ago
Exactly, I cannot believe it costs 20 - 30 mill to recycle Assassins Creed every year they have had the same core engine since the first game.
vulcanproject  +   292d ago
I read the studio of 500+ people working on a single AC.

Just to put it in simple terms, 500 full time people on an average of 30k a year is 15 million a year in wages alone.

It's not just tooling that has had a huge increase in costs for developers, but the size of studios needed to turn out a single high profile game every year or every two years has swollen hugely.

Big playstation/N64 late era titles were often made with just 20-30 people working on them. Super Mario 64? About 15 people. Most major studios these days have 100+ working on a single title.
#4.1.1 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Nicaragua  +   291d ago
Again if it is taking Ubisoft 500 staff to churn out each Assassins creed then they are doing something very wrong.

By contrast The Last Of Us was made by a team of around 50 people and that was a brand new IP.
Bladesfist  +   291d ago
The average wage for a game dev is $80k a year so the costs are much much higher.
http://www.gamespot.com/art...
#4.1.3 (Edited 291d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Tontus  +   291d ago
@Nicaragua lol! Who the hell told you that only 50 devs worked on TLoU? That's not close to the truth. There's 500 employees at Naughty Dog and two teams, assuming they're equal sized teams then that's 230+ on TLoU and 230+ and the rest form the ICE Team.

Not to mention that Assassin's Creed games are released yearly which totally justifies the 500 strong team, TLoU took 3.5 years to create, 4 AC games released during that time. How are they doing something really wrong?
Nicaragua  +   290d ago
@Tontus

I got that figure from this interview with the founders of Naughty Dog which I think has a bit more credibility than the assumption you just pulled out of your ass.

http://youtu.be/cQNgK8iz5cQ
CrossingEden  +   290d ago
Um, no they haven't had the same core engine from the first game. Did you just avoid all of the information about the anvil next engine? You know, that AC engine which was built from the ground up for AC3 and 4 -_-
Ps4Console  +   291d ago
Online wasn't new where did you get that from online started with the sega Megadrive lol with it's new add on's , then the Pc & DreamCast & the original Xbox .
#4.2 (Edited 291d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Fairchild Channel F  +   291d ago
Yes online was around in some limited fashion on some consoles and of course it was around on PC for quite a long time. But the discussion is why games are costing so much more to make. Most game companies that were developing games predominantly for consoles back in 2000 when the PS2 launched were not putting an online component into their games. They did not have the employes or the infrastructure on a company level to do so. How many games by Insominac had multiplayer on PS2? Naughty Dog? Capcom? Konami? Ubisoft? Square? Now look at today. They all have online play in nearly all their released games. That means more development time and more employees. That means more money. So for them, online was very much a new thing they had to address as companies.
Flatbattery  +   292d ago
Apart from licencing, development costs for the PS4 and Xbox One should be no different than for PC as of now. So how can development costs jump so substantially? Simple, publishers claim higher costs so they can charge higher prices. Don't fall for the lies.
#5 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
-Gespenst-  +   292d ago
Hmmm yeah you might be right about that. Although when thinking about development costs, you also have to factor in payment to all the big name voice actors (well, Troy Baker and Nolan North), as well as general higher standards in production technology. Music for instance - a lot of games rely on live instruments and hiring musicians and studio time and whatnot. I'd also imagine that all the technology available for making the games is probably more expensive, as are the wages for developers working for triple-A companies - videogames are an expensive industry these days.
_FantasmA_  +   292d ago
Well if PS4 is going to have less games, then Xbox will be even worse. Games cost a ton to make now and developer/publisher greed doesn't help, so of course you're going to see less. Quality of games is more important.
#6 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
-Gespenst-  +   292d ago
Indies will probably sort everything out, but unfortunately I feel like they're destined to become the AAAs of the future, at which point we'll hit another decline like there is now. What's at the core of this trend? Money. Get rid of it.

I think you're right to correllate the shortening length of game and the increasing of graphical quality with all this. I'd also say games are easier too because of this. It's all abou minimizing risk where there are such huge expenses and investments. The level of detail achieveable means games can be developed for years before they're completed. So that might have something to do with them being so short. Publishers want games coming out at much the same frequency as they always have, but to do that they need to be shorter. They hav to be easier lest the game do bad critically - and by extension financially - for being "cheap" or "broken" in their design. And they have to be graphically impressive because that's what this industry has put in gamer's heads as being the most important thing about games - graphics and performance. Therefore it's safe to make games graphically intensive and realistic.
smashcrashbash  +   292d ago
Quality is definitely better then quantity.A few things do need to change but I am not going back to lower quality just to get more of them.Higher quality is not just graphics but many of the things that make up modern gaming.Also a longer game doesn't equal a better game, a shorter game doesn't equal a worst game and more games doesn't necessarily equal a ton of great games.The PS4 could have twice as many games and half of them are average to low.Plus 'doomed' to have fewer games? Really?
Prime157  +   289d ago
Whereas I agree with most of which you are saying... I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Quality is up to the studio, and gamers will know if it's quality. Quantity of studios means more fighting for your dollar. The quality studios will rise.

I mean, look at a bookstore. Authors are like game studios, it's about access of ideas; that's where the quality shines through.
Hekticboss44  +   292d ago
Bs I smell a agenda hold no it's fanboy B.O.this gen will be better than the last sorry if I'm wrong but gut instinct
OrangePowerz  +   292d ago
The data from UbiSoft quoted is outdated. in 2009 they launched AC2 since that time they changed to a more aggressive development schedule. Now they have several AC games under development at the same time each one taking up more than 1000 people so they already spend more than the 20-30 million per game.

With the switch to x86 things are easier to port from PC to the consoles and all assets are made anyway in a higher resolution than what they use in games. So the textures are always made in higher resolution and downscalled to be used for the consoles or PC. Even if a game is not released for the PC it is still coded on the PC and since next gen uses similar architecture getting that code to run is easier compared to the current/last gen.

The 800 released PS3 games figure does not appear to be correct. Every game has a product code on the box starting from 0001 (the first game to receive a product code). The latest game I bought this year has the product code BLES-1945 meaning it is game number 1945 to received a product code here in Europe. That code is 3rd party only since the 1st party games have a different code with their numbers (starting with BCES). There will be games that received a product code and did not get released for whatever reason, but I`m sure that there are not 1 100 games that got a code and never got released.

Edit: "Sony also announced that an impressive 4,332 games have been released for the console worldwide"

http://ie.ign.com/articles/...
#10 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Ranma1  +   292d ago
Sony probably includes psn games.

Anyway I got 795 from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

And it lists each and every game. count yourself and see if any missing
OrangePowerz  +   292d ago
I`m not going to go tough a list of 800 games and compare it to what games I have and know that have been released to check it for missing games.

It doesn`t matter if Sony includes PSN games or not, on PS2 and PS1 there was no digital game store. So small games that you would release now digital only would have been released on disc because that was the only option, so even if that list of 800 disc only games would be correct it`s not the correct way of counting games to leave out PSN games just because they haven`t been released on disc.
memots  +   292d ago
I remember playing Quake 2 to death
I played Jedi knight and Halo 2 on Xbox.
I played a hell of a lot of WarHawk, Kz 2.3 and Resistance 2 on ps3.

All you really is a couple of solid game that you play online a lot , I don't need 20 different game. I want one , something that will keep me playing for ever.
phil_75  +   292d ago
If PS4 has less games then so will Xbone and they will be inferior!

Nice try, brain of an xbot let you down !
#12 (Edited 292d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Soldierone  +   292d ago
The problem isn't the tech and effort, its the publishers. Games cost more because they need these new AAA titles to be out yearly. So instead of a studio of 100 guys working on a game over 3 years, its a studio of 1000 guys working on it for a year with hardly any breaks.

What I hate is that we don't have the "PS2 Standard" anymore. Everything either needs to be "next gen" looking, or its old 80's arcade style. How many top down zombie shooters do we need from indie studios?

I remember Ps2 was so great because you had all kind of games. A lot were not "AAA" but we fun as hell. We don't get that anymore, everything needs to be blockbuster or its a fail. Thats why i'm crossing my fingers this new indie push actually produces something beyond zombie top shooter 6.
TheSaint  +   291d ago
Less shite games then? 80 - 90% of all games are crud anyway.
Fairchild Channel F  +   291d ago
Sorry double post.
#15 (Edited 291d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
contradictory  +   291d ago
sounds depressing...
also i'd really want to see some other genre of games than
FPS, Sports and Racing.
#16 (Edited 291d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
wishingW3L  +   291d ago
Blog entry of the year!
dillhole  +   291d ago
Did anyone play 2400 games for the ps1? I remember playing about 50. Maybe I'm casual compared to some of you but for most of the PS3's life cycle (after the shaky start) I had more than enough games to be getting on with. I just got a PS4 and with only BF4 and KillzoneSF I can sense a depth to the multiplayer that was rarely seen in the PS1/PS2 era.
#18 (Edited 291d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
wishingW3L  +   291d ago
having more games is not about playing them all but about variety because not everybody likes the same thing.
Cabarb187   291d ago | Spam
PS3n360  +   289d ago
It is worth mentioning that PS3 was released in time for a world recession while the ps2 was released during one of the most robust economic periods in history combined with a tech boom. During the last 7 years it was most likely very difficult for studios to secure finances to develop numerous or big budget games.
MidnytRain  +   289d ago
How many exclusives does Sony have coming next year, anyway?
keeponjammin08  +   289d ago
You're not counting PSN games, which is where you'll find the answer to the question you're posing. There were so many games in the older gens because venture capitalist thought video games were a sure thing and just about anyone could make a crummy game and push it through. Now that it costs serious money, and the world is in a recession, only bigger projects get pushed to discs. Indies and smaller games are publishing digitally, and are not being represented by your figures. There's going to be plenty of games, maybe 10% fewer than last gen as more and more money dries up and studios close.
SynestheticRoar  +   286d ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. LOL. who writes this shit. 2funny.
AnotherGamer117  +   286d ago | Intelligent
Ranma1 is making some interesting points but there are some definite issues with using wiki as his number of games source.

I assume these are the 2 links for his wiki games counts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Now the 3870 games for the PS2 is actually defined by the following link ( http://www.gamespot.com/gam... on the wiki page itself. If you click on the link, the total number is over 4K games.

In contrast the PS3 games count is at 795 but no link to how that number was obtained. Since the PS2 games count is actually using a secondary site for the total number, I ran the same query on the same secondary site for the PS3. That total number is 2443. So there is still a sizeable drop, but just not nearly as bad.

Another issue that I have is the issue around synergies and efficiencies. A PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 are all quite different and will take more effort with the art, story, and other elements of the game. Heck - the 360 and PS3 were very limited memory wise. Now the Xbox one, PC and PS4 are all very similar and they should allow a MP game developer to have much better efficiencies in creating a game. So in the short term, while the developers are getting used to the new consoles - the costs will be higher but long term the costs should go down.

Now you might want to point out the higher graphic resolutions. My answer relates back to the PC. Didn't they need these higher resolutions on the PC? Shouldn't these port over much easier to the PS4 and Xbox One?

One last point, is Ubisoft saying 60 million because it is creating a game for all the consoles? It can't be cheap to make a Wii U, PS3, 360, PS4, Xbox One and a PC game...

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember