I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
This is doubly funny when developers repeatedly release bullshot videos and trailers that consoles and most pcs will be unable to replicate. They set themselves up for those very same expectations, and then pay through the nose to meet them 'ish while most savvy consumers around here walk into it knowing that even footage with 'actual gameplay' notations probably has a good half dozen asterisks appended.
"So we showed off some whiz bang uber graphics, which means people demand them, which means we spend like the GDP of a small nation making the damned thing, which means we now need to charge full price and ideally milk the whales in the community for another nine figures or so in order to recoup costs, make a profit, and then buy a smaller yacht to put in the swimming pool of our larger yacht" is not the kind of situation that is going to generate much empathy.
They could have walked away from that ledge at any time. They chose not to. Or are so blinded by the need to 'keep up with the Jones'' that it's basically the same thing.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+6
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Companies don't need to do photorealistic graphics. Hell, half the time a company says that they need to do feature X, Y, or Z it's because something else was successful with that feature and management decided that that was the secret sauce for success.
I also think that photorealism is something that companies aim for because it's a more quantifiable goal than a Cool Art Style.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I personally can't think of a game I bought in at least the last 5 years where I got it because the graphics were the shiniest. The big fad game right now is, what, Fortnite? Which is anything but photorealistic graphics. Overwatch was a big hit and, again, no photorealistic graphics. Something around half of the current global top sellers on Steam are not games with photorealistic graphics. Games have hit a point where the average player is going to have a tough time picking out any actual visual improvements game to game for something like the Call of Duty franchise, but they definitely kick up a ruckus about things like balance and unlockables.
As far as causing a collapse, the market that will collapse will be the mega-budget games, not the games market in general. Any company currently making a profit without lootbox shit and by having reasonable profit expectations will be fine.
The big lesson here seems to be "stop spending so much fucking money to make video games", not that they should cost more or be propped up by something like lootboxing.
I don’t know about “shiniest,” but I’ve definitely made purchasing decisions based on general graphical shininess.
If they want my money for Battlefield V it’s gonna have to look better than Battlefield 4 and 3 (and offer at least some marginal progression from 1). I’m not buying FIFA if it looks the exact same as last year’s. Tomb Raider, Ace Combat, Forza, these are all games that sell on visuals.
Yeah, some people play nothing but Fortnite and Enter the Gungeon. And I love me some lo-fi indie games too. But much as I will go see both Booksmart *and* Endgame, I play both Battlefield *and* Overcooked.
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
Audio/Engineers/Production Managers/QA can also apply to the "treyarch modded quake engine team" (or whatever they're using to date) that will get included in the credits all the same.
That's nearly 3/4 of all those people.
I'm not saying that costs haven't gone up, I'm arguing that they're as black and white as you claimed they were. They are absolutely not.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
why do you think there are so many artists
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+8
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
+8
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.
How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.
It's not really black and white, though. 2003 was sixteen years ago. Games cost more to make since the advent of the HD era, but the audience for games has massively exploded since then. Video games are now the most popular form of entertainment in the world. Even if their profits per sale are smaller, their potential sales, especially for a franchise like Call of Duty, are much, much larger. For comparison's sake, the first CoD reaped about 1,000,000 copies sold in 2003, its release year. CoD: Black Ops 3, twelve years later, sold 6,600,000 units in its first week.
Pricing is also not what it was. Big "AAA" games routinely offer multiple editions - your bronze, silver, and gold editions, etc. A lot of people, myself included, do end up shelling out for these editions and their often exclusive items because of FOMO.
Game companies also infamously are stellar at avoiding having to pay things that other companies do. Like paying royalties to their voice actors and paying their fair share of taxes.
Distribution is also a completely new ball game. Digital distribution has massively cut into the cost of having to actually print and ship physical copies around the world.
And we can't forget the sponsorship deals that massive games like BO3 enjoy.
I would surmise, given these points and others, that video game companies already make plenty of profit off of the raw sale of games, despite the increased costs. It's hard to know for sure, though, because outside of the occasional leak, it's extremely difficult to get these "AAA" companies to admit how much their products cost to make.
So nah, you can't just look at team size and say that's the answer.
Since we'll never get budgets and particular on the game, I'd be confident in saying that their profits have increased every year since inception or else why would they make a new game every few years?
Literally no reason for that kind of business decision unless the game was printing fucking money.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+4
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.
How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.
It's not really black and white, though. 2003 was sixteen years ago. Games cost more to make since the advent of the HD era, but the audience for games has massively exploded since then. Video games are now the most popular form of entertainment in the world. Even if their profits per sale are smaller, their potential sales, especially for a franchise like Call of Duty, are much, much larger. For comparison's sake, the first CoD reaped about 1,000,000 copies sold in 2003, its release year. CoD: Black Ops 3, twelve years later, sold 6,600,000 units in its first week.
Pricing is also not what it was. Big "AAA" games routinely offer multiple editions - your bronze, silver, and gold editions, etc. A lot of people, myself included, do end up shelling out for these editions and their often exclusive items because of FOMO.
Game companies also infamously are stellar at avoiding having to pay things that other companies do. Like paying royalties to their voice actors and paying their fair share of taxes.
Distribution is also a completely new ball game. Digital distribution has massively cut into the cost of having to actually print and ship physical copies around the world.
And we can't forget the sponsorship deals that massive games like BO3 enjoy.
I would surmise, given these points and others, that video game companies already make plenty of profit off of the raw sale of games, despite the increased costs. It's hard to know for sure, though, because outside of the occasional leak, it's extremely difficult to get these "AAA" companies to admit how much their products cost to make.
So nah, you can't just look at team size and say that's the answer.
Nothing you've said has anything to do with the cost of making the game.
Digital distribution doesn't make paying 500 people any cheaper.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.
How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.
The skepticism is less that the game cost more to make and mostly that publishers are forcing games to cost more to make. Does it really seem like CODBLOPS 4, which is multiplayer-only, needed some twenty times the staff size of the first CoD? Hell. Fucking. No. The franchise formula has been very similar for several installments, and there's absolutely no reason for such massive budget and staff bloat except to very, very inefficiently churn out a new entry quickly. So the costs are going up because the publishers have to decided to turn the costs way up, all in pursuit of insane profits instead of merely acceptable profits.
Nobody believes that these budgets have to be this way to get good games, and definitely nobody should believe publishers whining about profits just because they say so. The industry has made this situation for itself. If a company can't make a profit without predatory game mechanics, then they shouldn't be making that game. Period. A 500-person team for a game that only has multiplayer, and not even an ambitious multiplayer with a lot of features unseen in other games, is just fucking insane.
They have to be this high to make photo realistic games that can compete with all the other photo realistic games. Consumer expectations of ever more ridiculous graphical fidelity is a huge factor. Extra Credits did a really good video on AAA budgets.
But the belief is that higher sticker prices will be rejected by consumers so that drives a need to find ways to make money beyond the initial purchase price.
While we should end lootboxes and other exploitative features we should be aware that this will not make games cheaper and it could cause a collapse*** if other ways to get more money out of games can't compensate.
Yeah you gonna need to asterisk the shit out of "collapse", considering we have platforms, distribution systems, and an eager market ready and willing to purchase games at all times. This is not 1985.
A collapse of the sweatshop AAA bullshit, maybe, but there's a ton of indie devs and smaller studios who wouldn't blink twice if Activision and EA collapsed under their own lumbering, slovenly weight.
You can't ignore knock on effects. Steam would probably be fine, but would Xbox and Playstation without AAA titles to push them?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.
How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.
The skepticism is less that the game cost more to make and mostly that publishers are forcing games to cost more to make. Does it really seem like CODBLOPS 4, which is multiplayer-only, needed some twenty times the staff size of the first CoD? Hell. Fucking. No. The franchise formula has been very similar for several installments, and there's absolutely no reason for such massive budget and staff bloat except to very, very inefficiently churn out a new entry quickly. So the costs are going up because the publishers have to decided to turn the costs way up, all in pursuit of insane profits instead of merely acceptable profits.
Nobody believes that these budgets have to be this way to get good games, and definitely nobody should believe publishers whining about profits just because they say so. The industry has made this situation for itself. If a company can't make a profit without predatory game mechanics, then they shouldn't be making that game. Period. A 500-person team for a game that only has multiplayer, and not even an ambitious multiplayer with a lot of features unseen in other games, is just fucking insane.
They have to be this high to make photo realistic games that can compete with all the other photo realistic games. Consumer expectations of ever more ridiculous graphical fidelity is a huge factor. Extra Credits did a really good video on AAA budgets.
But the belief is that higher sticker prices will be rejected by consumers so that drives a need to find ways to make money beyond the initial purchase price.
While we should end lootboxes and other exploitative features we should be aware that this will not make games cheaper and it could cause a collapse*** if other ways to get more money out of games can't compensate.
Yeah you gonna need to asterisk the shit out of "collapse", considering we have platforms, distribution systems, and an eager market ready and willing to purchase games at all times. This is not 1985.
A collapse of the sweatshop AAA bullshit, maybe, but there's a ton of indie devs and smaller studios who wouldn't blink twice if Activision and EA collapsed under their own lumbering, slovenly weight.
You can't ignore knock on effects. Steam would probably be fine, but would Xbox and Playstation without AAA titles to push them?
Probably not as fine as, say, the Switch, because Nintendo are literal money wizards.
But I would imagine there would be at least enough market to sustain one of them. Other titles and dev houses exist other than the top 3 Worst Examples of Everything (EA, Activision, Ubisoft).
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
And this happens in any kind of dev houses (12-15 hour days all the time), most creative endeavors, Amazon warehouse employees, startup companies who are looking for people with "passion", etc, military and law enforcement, etc.
It's extremely common in the US and while it sucks that it exists in the games industry also, they do not have some kind of monopoly on misery.
jungleroomx on
+3
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Even if all that content magically ceased to be, the number of artists probably wouldn't drop at all.
A few people, tops, it certainly wouldn't move the needle on the development budget in any noticeable way.
MTX stuff is usually stuff that can be cranked out pretty quickly, for obvious reasons. So if we used a magic wish to remove the idea from the world, those artists would just be busy doing all the other stuff, like environments, skinning, modelling, UI/HUD that they were doing anyways.
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
And this happens in any kind of dev houses (12-15 hour days all the time), most creative endeavors, Amazon warehouse employees, startup companies who are looking for people with "passion", etc, military and law enforcement, etc.
It's extremely common in the US and while it sucks that it exists in the games industry also, they do not have some kind of monopoly on misery.
Nah. I do 40 and go home. I'm still a software tester. I just have managers who respect my humanity.
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
And this happens in any kind of dev houses (12-15 hour days all the time), most creative endeavors, Amazon warehouse employees, startup companies who are looking for people with "passion", etc, military and law enforcement, etc.
It's extremely common in the US and while it sucks that it exists in the games industry also, they do not have some kind of monopoly on misery.
Nah. I do 40 and go home. I'm still a software tester. I just have managers who respect my humanity.
Yes.
I do as well.
But it happens, and it's prevalent in the entire American workforce. Pretending like game studios are the only ones who do "crunch time" is beyond absurd.
+3
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
In terms of overall development budget, you could take all that money and funnel it back into development... and you'd barely notice the effects.
While they're certainly earning obscene amounts of money, it's nothing compared to the combined costs of hiring all the people that actually make the games.
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
And this happens in any kind of dev houses (12-15 hour days all the time), most creative endeavors, Amazon warehouse employees, startup companies who are looking for people with "passion", etc, military and law enforcement, etc.
It's extremely common in the US and while it sucks that it exists in the games industry also, they do not have some kind of monopoly on misery.
Nah. I do 40 and go home. I'm still a software tester. I just have managers who respect my humanity.
Yes.
I do as well.
But it happens, and it's prevalent in the entire American workforce. Pretending like game studios are the only ones who do "crunch time" is beyond absurd.
People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.
How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.
It's not really black and white, though. 2003 was sixteen years ago. Games cost more to make since the advent of the HD era, but the audience for games has massively exploded since then. Video games are now the most popular form of entertainment in the world. Even if their profits per sale are smaller, their potential sales, especially for a franchise like Call of Duty, are much, much larger. For comparison's sake, the first CoD reaped about 1,000,000 copies sold in 2003, its release year. CoD: Black Ops 3, twelve years later, sold 6,600,000 units in its first week.
Pricing is also not what it was. Big "AAA" games routinely offer multiple editions - your bronze, silver, and gold editions, etc. A lot of people, myself included, do end up shelling out for these editions and their often exclusive items because of FOMO.
Game companies also infamously are stellar at avoiding having to pay things that other companies do. Like paying royalties to their voice actors and paying their fair share of taxes.
Distribution is also a completely new ball game. Digital distribution has massively cut into the cost of having to actually print and ship physical copies around the world.
And we can't forget the sponsorship deals that massive games like BO3 enjoy.
I would surmise, given these points and others, that video game companies already make plenty of profit off of the raw sale of games, despite the increased costs. It's hard to know for sure, though, because outside of the occasional leak, it's extremely difficult to get these "AAA" companies to admit how much their products cost to make.
So nah, you can't just look at team size and say that's the answer.
Nothing you've said has anything to do with the cost of making the game.
Except we only care about costs in making games in so much as they drive undesirable behavior like loot boxes, and we ask "is such behavior required."
I doubt anyone here actually thinks that games cost less as an absolute dollar value to make today than sixteen years ago. That's silly. If that's the point you're trying to make, then congrats on winning the Obvious Awards.
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
In terms of overall development budget, you could take all that money and funnel it back into development... and you'd barely notice the effects.
While they're certainly earning obscene amounts of money, it's nothing compared to the combined costs of hiring all the people that actually make the games.
I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but what you've said reads to me as "well the combined salaries of all these people ends up being more than the salaries of these few select people, so what's the real cost?"
If you took those inflated salaries from the top and distributed them to the people who were doing the actual work, you'd be paying the people who were already there better wages. You can make the argument that not having more people working there would mean you "wouldn't notice the effects" but there's also a case to be made that people making better wages and having better job security leads to better productivity and higher quality work because they'll be less stressed out.
If the current industry model isn't sustainable even if we eliminate the executive salaries... then it's still the fault of those who made the decision to implement those models... you know, the executives.
I'm looking at codblops in particular and it looks like the bulk of the staff is things like porting to multiple platforms and literally anyone who touched the code at any one point. So if you've got a team of people who work on your graphics engine in house that services every game you write and have been working on it for 10 years, they're in the credits just as much as the team who designed maps, models, meshes, and scripts that actually make the game.
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Only exist? None.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
I think jrx was saying the developers who also work in game companies are overworked too.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
Yes, false statements like that. If you have a citation for those being a meaningful percentage of development costs please provide it.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Artists, realistically, are probably one of the few areas in game dev where you can scale them linearly and get a linear return.
Most other roles have a "too many chefs in the kitchen" type return when scaled up that large. Granted, dev can do a bit since there are different components of an engine or scripting system you can put people to work on (that don't interact) but by and large artists can be relatively autonomous in what you're doling out.
If you do offer lootboxes, them and audio are the few people you'll still need a bunch of on staff after launch. Developers and scripters will be dwindled down to maintenance levels unless you're planning a lot of content patches.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
Yes, false statements like that. If you have a citation for those being a meaningful percentage of development costs please provide it.
Do you typically factor in C-level executives pay into cost of development or budgets of games? They're strictly operating costs for the company itself.
Which is different from how they figure project based or seasonal/contract employees for games. Odd I guess, but C-level is expected to be permanent so is probably calculated differently? I doubt we'd get any meaningful citation for this shit because no one posts that unless the company is publically traded and you wanted to peruse through their SEC filings... but this is one of those situations where we all work in the real world and most of us have seen the owner of the company show up with their lexus and overhear them talk about their 4 homes.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
You know that they could just... still design all those items and put them in the game, just not as MTX items? Have them be unlockable via achievements or hidden sidequests or purchased from in-game shopkeeps with your fantasycoins?
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
Yes, false statements like that. If you have a citation for those being a meaningful percentage of development costs please provide it.
You too are making a declarative statement without providing a citation.
The below is from EA's 2018 financial statement. These are pretty big numbers.
NAME, TITLE, TOTAL COMPENSATION
ANDREW WILSON
Chief Executive Officer
$35,728,764
PATRICK SÖDERLUND
Executive Vice President, EA Worldwide Studios
$48,385,837
I am always sad when c-level exec pays show up, even the lowest paid person there will probably make more than some of us in our entire life. And they pull it in in a single year.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So using those numbers and the best number I could get for how many games EA put out in 2018 being 12 and assuming an average total budget of 100 million for a AAA title, I get 9%.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Is the argument being made in favour of lootboxes here that those in favour are okay with all the detrimental effects they have on large parts of the population and they are okay with the psychological manipulations designed to prey upon those vulnerable parts of the population being added to pretty much all the triple A games on the market?
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
I'd think that even before the advent of mocrotransactions and later lootboxes, profits from big games have increased every year even with increased costs. The "games are expensive to make" line feels like an excuse that's only technically true and tells less than half the story.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Posts
I'm skeptical that half of those people actually worked on the game directly. They're still important pieces of the puzzle, but certainly doesn't justify why AAA studios seem to think they need to charge $500 a unit to break even. If anything, it should be lower than it used to be because of how reusable and efficient those components are now compared to writing a new engine every game.
"So we showed off some whiz bang uber graphics, which means people demand them, which means we spend like the GDP of a small nation making the damned thing, which means we now need to charge full price and ideally milk the whales in the community for another nine figures or so in order to recoup costs, make a profit, and then buy a smaller yacht to put in the swimming pool of our larger yacht" is not the kind of situation that is going to generate much empathy.
They could have walked away from that ledge at any time. They chose not to. Or are so blinded by the need to 'keep up with the Jones'' that it's basically the same thing.
I also think that photorealism is something that companies aim for because it's a more quantifiable goal than a Cool Art Style.
I don’t know about “shiniest,” but I’ve definitely made purchasing decisions based on general graphical shininess.
If they want my money for Battlefield V it’s gonna have to look better than Battlefield 4 and 3 (and offer at least some marginal progression from 1). I’m not buying FIFA if it looks the exact same as last year’s. Tomb Raider, Ace Combat, Forza, these are all games that sell on visuals.
Yeah, some people play nothing but Fortnite and Enter the Gungeon. And I love me some lo-fi indie games too. But much as I will go see both Booksmart *and* Endgame, I play both Battlefield *and* Overcooked.
To actually break it down, treyarch had the following people working on CODBLOPS IV
28 Animators
145 Artists
95 people working on audio
67 Engineers
36 Production managers and the like
103 QA people
24 people as being "treyarch", so I'm assuming the higher ups in the company
and 46 as 'additional Support'.
So, discounting Production managers and "treyarch" and then adding in "additional support" to be generous to your point, that makes 438 people that worked on the game directly.
I wonder how many of these people only exist for grind unlocks and lootbox items.
Audio/Engineers/Production Managers/QA can also apply to the "treyarch modded quake engine team" (or whatever they're using to date) that will get included in the credits all the same.
That's nearly 3/4 of all those people.
I'm not saying that costs haven't gone up, I'm arguing that they're as black and white as you claimed they were. They are absolutely not.
Only exist? None.
why do you think there are so many artists
I'm finding it difficult to believe that can be determined from the information given.
The authoring of any assets for grinds and lootboxes is going to be split across multiple people anyway, and it won't be the only thing they do.
If you're making weapon skins, you'll make them for base items, and unlocks.
If you're working on audio lines, then it'll be for base gameplay, as well as any unlocks.
If you're working on icons, you'll be doing that for menus, hud, and unlocks
Nobody is hiring hundreds of people to only sit there and make things that will be in unlocks.
It's not really black and white, though. 2003 was sixteen years ago. Games cost more to make since the advent of the HD era, but the audience for games has massively exploded since then. Video games are now the most popular form of entertainment in the world. Even if their profits per sale are smaller, their potential sales, especially for a franchise like Call of Duty, are much, much larger. For comparison's sake, the first CoD reaped about 1,000,000 copies sold in 2003, its release year. CoD: Black Ops 3, twelve years later, sold 6,600,000 units in its first week.
Pricing is also not what it was. Big "AAA" games routinely offer multiple editions - your bronze, silver, and gold editions, etc. A lot of people, myself included, do end up shelling out for these editions and their often exclusive items because of FOMO.
Game companies also infamously are stellar at avoiding having to pay things that other companies do. Like paying royalties to their voice actors and paying their fair share of taxes.
Distribution is also a completely new ball game. Digital distribution has massively cut into the cost of having to actually print and ship physical copies around the world.
And we can't forget the sponsorship deals that massive games like BO3 enjoy.
I would surmise, given these points and others, that video game companies already make plenty of profit off of the raw sale of games, despite the increased costs. It's hard to know for sure, though, because outside of the occasional leak, it's extremely difficult to get these "AAA" companies to admit how much their products cost to make.
So nah, you can't just look at team size and say that's the answer.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Literally no reason for that kind of business decision unless the game was printing fucking money.
Nothing you've said has anything to do with the cost of making the game.
Digital distribution doesn't make paying 500 people any cheaper.
Out of 145, how many artists do you actually need after removing all unlocks and mtx items?
Given that all game development staff are overworked, at least 160.
Lol
Everyones fucking overworked.
Or, and bear with me hear, if they don't need that many people working on a game because of the reduced development needs because of the elimination of MTX, they could be assigned to work on a different game. Lots of studios are working on more than one game simultaneously!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You can't ignore knock on effects. Steam would probably be fine, but would Xbox and Playstation without AAA titles to push them?
Probably not as fine as, say, the Switch, because Nintendo are literal money wizards.
But I would imagine there would be at least enough market to sustain one of them. Other titles and dev houses exist other than the top 3 Worst Examples of Everything (EA, Activision, Ubisoft).
No. In the games industry you see people sleeping under their desks because they work so much they can't go home. At major publishers While not making enough to afford their own apartment.
Making skins and shit to sell is almost certainly the most cost efficient part of game development so no, that doesn't work.
People are being incredibly unrealistic about the actual costs of game development.
And this happens in any kind of dev houses (12-15 hour days all the time), most creative endeavors, Amazon warehouse employees, startup companies who are looking for people with "passion", etc, military and law enforcement, etc.
It's extremely common in the US and while it sucks that it exists in the games industry also, they do not have some kind of monopoly on misery.
Even if all that content magically ceased to be, the number of artists probably wouldn't drop at all.
A few people, tops, it certainly wouldn't move the needle on the development budget in any noticeable way.
MTX stuff is usually stuff that can be cranked out pretty quickly, for obvious reasons. So if we used a magic wish to remove the idea from the world, those artists would just be busy doing all the other stuff, like environments, skinning, modelling, UI/HUD that they were doing anyways.
Nah. I do 40 and go home. I'm still a software tester. I just have managers who respect my humanity.
You mean the incredibly inflated salaries and bonuses awarded to executives and top-levels managers?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes.
I do as well.
But it happens, and it's prevalent in the entire American workforce. Pretending like game studios are the only ones who do "crunch time" is beyond absurd.
In terms of overall development budget, you could take all that money and funnel it back into development... and you'd barely notice the effects.
While they're certainly earning obscene amounts of money, it's nothing compared to the combined costs of hiring all the people that actually make the games.
Sure but we have a thread title.
Except we only care about costs in making games in so much as they drive undesirable behavior like loot boxes, and we ask "is such behavior required."
I doubt anyone here actually thinks that games cost less as an absolute dollar value to make today than sixteen years ago. That's silly. If that's the point you're trying to make, then congrats on winning the Obvious Awards.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but what you've said reads to me as "well the combined salaries of all these people ends up being more than the salaries of these few select people, so what's the real cost?"
If you took those inflated salaries from the top and distributed them to the people who were doing the actual work, you'd be paying the people who were already there better wages. You can make the argument that not having more people working there would mean you "wouldn't notice the effects" but there's also a case to be made that people making better wages and having better job security leads to better productivity and higher quality work because they'll be less stressed out.
If the current industry model isn't sustainable even if we eliminate the executive salaries... then it's still the fault of those who made the decision to implement those models... you know, the executives.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think jrx was saying the developers who also work in game companies are overworked too.
Yes, false statements like that. If you have a citation for those being a meaningful percentage of development costs please provide it.
Most other roles have a "too many chefs in the kitchen" type return when scaled up that large. Granted, dev can do a bit since there are different components of an engine or scripting system you can put people to work on (that don't interact) but by and large artists can be relatively autonomous in what you're doling out.
If you do offer lootboxes, them and audio are the few people you'll still need a bunch of on staff after launch. Developers and scripters will be dwindled down to maintenance levels unless you're planning a lot of content patches.
Do you typically factor in C-level executives pay into cost of development or budgets of games? They're strictly operating costs for the company itself.
Which is different from how they figure project based or seasonal/contract employees for games. Odd I guess, but C-level is expected to be permanent so is probably calculated differently? I doubt we'd get any meaningful citation for this shit because no one posts that unless the company is publically traded and you wanted to peruse through their SEC filings... but this is one of those situations where we all work in the real world and most of us have seen the owner of the company show up with their lexus and overhear them talk about their 4 homes.
You too are making a declarative statement without providing a citation.
The below is from EA's 2018 financial statement. These are pretty big numbers.