Why do games have to cost so much to make?

Game developers and publishers, please don't give me an excuse that blames the rising costs of development or that we need triple A quality games, because in reality we don't. All of us play games because they're fun, we enjoy them. They pass time. If your game is fun, we'll play them.

Just because you spent $200 million to make your flashy, oh so shiny game does not mean I'll play it. I'll laugh at all of the money you just mindlessly threw away.

[ltachiUchiha]

Because it takes time & resources & if your team is small it can take even longer.

[ctate1995]

Valid point, I just can't see why the heck you would even consider over budgeting by tens of millions of dollars and expect to make that back on a brand new IP. Beats me xD

[ltachiUchiha]

Plus it matters what kind of game your creating. Triple AAA games usually cost alot to make compared to indie games. Im not a pro at these things but you can tell how much work was put into a game by the quality of it. Well atleast thats what i think lol.

[3-4-5]

They don't have to take that much money, people just aren't efficient enough with their money.

* Sometimes games cost more because the team is bigger, therefore allowing them to possibly release the game sooner due to larger work force.

* Sometimes it cost more because of the time they are taking to fill the game with as much as possible + if graphics/art style are amazing maybe it costs more for really good artists.

There are so many different factors for each one and I don't make games so I don't really know but there isn't just one reason.

IMO Most of the time dev's waste money on features and parts of games that nobody wants to play or that end up sucking and just aren't fun.

[rainslacker]

There was a blog post about 5-6 years ago about what a game developer does on a normal day. I couldn't find the link, but it it is really interesting.

Basically, the author said that he comes to work then spends about an hour responding to emails(i assume work related). Then he spends an hour getting up to date on what needs to be done that day. Then a couple hours in a developers meeting(when core hours start). Then it's lunch. Then after lunch about 1-2 hours creating the game. After that, another hour long meeting. Then about an hour to do whatever before they go home(winding down the day).

Most of these meetings were in the way of team meetings, creative meetings, department meetings, etc. Just things talking about how to make the game and relaying the information to others just so they knew what they had to do.

He said almost the entire studio worked like this, and it was like this at a majority of the big studios, particularly those owned by big publishers.

So, for two years of work, the devs spend about 624 hours actually creating a game(not counting holidays, vacations, etc). The bureaucracy increases the time it takes to make a product, thus increasing it's cost.

As a side note, I will add, being a programmer, 1-2 hours isn't that much. Generally it takes time to start getting up steam, and for me, I get annoyed when I have to stop when I'd rather keep working because things are going good.

This isn't the only reason costs are so bloated, but it doesn't help. Imagine being able to get so much more productivity done by have less meetings that are more focused.

[FrigidDARKNESS]

Well from the 90s game developme costs was cheap and so were games. As gamers demand better graphics and hi tech consoles and the rise of piracy.developemrnt costs have sky rocketed so the costs are passed on to the consumers.

[Ducky]

I'm probably suffering from brain damage then because I remember games being more expensive.

I'd blame marketing for the currently large costs, since it seems like more and more money gets spent on marketing than the actual game development.

[SexyGamerDude]

Even in the 90's. I remember certain games still being around the 50 or 60 dollar mark.

[cyguration]

No, the 1990s game development was not cheap, but it was dominated more-so by indies than big wig corporate players.

Back in the 90s most of gaming (on PC) was dominated by indies with titles such as Epic Pinball, Doom, Corridor 7 and Sierra's titles, which were made by a handful of people.

Still, the average game on consoles cost $1 million to produce and was always on the verge of causing the publisher to go bankrupt. It was tough times, even back then and they didn't have $50 million marketing budgets for top titles, either.

Nowadays the expenses are associated mostly with overblown budgets and the need to "compete for a broad audience", this includes all those heavily scripted and expensive set pieces designed by hundreds of artists in order to "wow" gamers.

Also, gamers aren't DEMANDING better graphics, in fact the biggest selling game on Xbox 360 in 2012 was Minecraft, which is the complete opposite of a graphically demanding game.

Gamers demand good games, but many bigwig publishers are all about chasing dollars so they spend immoderately in order to get casual buyers to commit to the $60 purchase. It's quite silly but game budgets DO NOT need to be $60 million.

Crysis was made on what, a $5 million budget? And how many games actually top it graphically? With the advent of more advanced engines (like Brigade) it's no longer necessary to keep paying out the bunghole for good games with good graphics. And teams consisting of 600 people is the wrong way to go about putting games onto the market.

[Prcko]

Next gen is here,costs won't be so high

[Venoxn4g]

yea right :DDD i dont talk about indies..

[PANTHER1030]

For the expensives CEO's salaries. =(

[e-p-ayeaH]

It really depends on what game were talking about.

-The bigger the development team is the budget increases.
-Publisher plans out DLC = bigger budget.
-Hiring celebrities to participate and/or sponsor your game = a much bigger budget.
(and much more)

Not all big titles get bigger budgets sequel after sequel.

[KillrateOmega]

Overblown budgets, an apparent need to appeal to as broad of an audience as possible, and a pursuit of increasing graphical fidelity.

[drizzom]

Are you kidding me?! Don't you know how expensive it is to develop fish AI and saliva physics on a dogs tongue??

[KillrateOmega]

Not to mention expensive. After all, we all know that that is rocket science level stuff right there.

[josephayal]

I love price drops

[Tzuno]

not always. sometime they develop with crap budget and gain a hell more from sales.

[kneon]

That's right, most companies would rather invest $10million and get $20million in sales than invest $50million and get $70million is sales

Sure the profit is higher in the second case but the ROI is much lower and they've risked a lot more.

[dcbronco]

If you make a game for 10 million and earn 20 million you have lost money. Other expenses , including taxes will eat that 20 million in a heartbeat. You have to do a lot better than double the cost.

[rainslacker]

The "Other expenses" is the initial 10 million investment, more commonly known as the game budget.

And you'd only be paying taxes on 10 million, since the "other expenses" are taken out of the 20 million dollars to give the net profit(no different than itemizing your personal tax returns). You'd end up making less, but as kneon said, the risk of investment is much lower, and your still turning a decent profit. Many smaller studios are very happy to be working off this model.

[mochachino]

Biggest revolution in gaming would be somehow drastically reducing the cost of making games.

A lot more risks will be taken if companies didn't have to bet the bank on just a few titles.

[isarai]

well you have to pay a team of about 100 people for a game that takes several years to finish. not to mention you have to pay the bills for the studio(electricity bill has got to be insane!) then there's extra money for contingencies like delays and such. then for bigger titles there's shit tons going towards marketing