Does anyone else think that graphics are advancing too fast?

#1kreegan64Posted 11/24/2012 5:24:22 PM
After reading some interviews about how some games are costing up to 25 million dollars and need 2 million copies sold to break even for some bigger titles and how in the earlier times they only costed some 2 million to make. To me, if you aren't making a profit at 2 million sales, then you might be spending a little too much to make it. Do you think that devs are doing too much too soon? Do you think we gamers could have waited longer for hd graphics? Do you think we need many more graphical enhancements?
---
Jesus Christ saves any who call and accept him. Today is better than tomorrow to get saved. Never accept the mark of the beast.
#2Lord_CohlianiPosted 11/24/2012 5:25:15 PM
Nintendo fanboyism has atrophied your brain.
---
SteamID: Old Gregg
#3_FalstaffPosted 11/24/2012 5:26:41 PM
"Does anyone else think that graphics are advancing too fast?"

Yes. Very soon, within the next few years, graphics will be so advanced, we won't be able to tell the difference between real life and video games. That is when the machines take over.
---
9 days to go, and I'm out of here.
#4nilesthebravePosted 11/24/2012 5:28:25 PM
Technology in general advances too fast. Very few people can actually appreciate what their systems or smart phones are actually doing and how it works.
---
Anti-boner is a dangerous material. I isolated pure anti-boner and that is the reason why Germany has negative population growth.-Benamingaska
#5AstralFrostPosted 11/24/2012 5:31:32 PM
Agreed, PS3 and 360 graphics were awesome 5 years ago and now Nintendo can finally compete with those graphics. In the next year or so there will be new PS and Xbox consoles and Nintendo will be left in the dust. Again.
#6DaLaggaPosted 11/24/2012 5:32:30 PM
If anything, graphics have advanced more slowly in the past few years than they ever have. Mainly because the current generation of consoles has gone on too long and is holding everything back. Also, better hardware doesn't have to increase the costs of development at all. Games like Skyrim, Uncharted, Crysis 2, etc. would have all been much cheaper to develop on next-gen hardware because less optimization would be needed to get them running properly.

The only reason costs rise is because better hardware lifts the ceiling on what developers can potentially spend before the hardware limits their returns. However, just because they can spend more money doesn't mean they have to. Moreover, if it weren't feasible to spend 25+ million on a game, then developers wouldn't do it. The market will decide when enough is enough.
#7_FalstaffPosted 11/24/2012 5:36:57 PM
nilesthebrave posted...
Technology in general advances too fast. Very few people can actually appreciate what their systems or smart phones are actually doing and how it works.

You know, I think there is actually something to this side of the argument. My previous comment was just humor, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that suggests newer technologies are changing our social order.

So, humor aside, yes, I think do think we've been walking dangerous grounds for the past ten years or so, maybe even longer, with visuals becoming more and more realistic. This is my viewpoint from a psychological perspective.
---
9 days to go, and I'm out of here.
#8DTY3Posted 11/24/2012 5:37:57 PM
Lord_Cohliani posted...
Nintendo fanboyism has atrophied your brain.


gee this board is friendly
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/DTY16
GameFAQS users are far too sensitive.
#9game freakozoidPosted 11/24/2012 5:38:18 PM
What game didn't make a profit at 2 million sales? Hell the profit at that would have been pretty huge if the game cost 25 million to make and sold 2 million.


Apart from AAA releases (which usually cost a lot more than 25 million), 2 million titles sold would be a huge success.
#10EoinPosted 11/24/2012 5:52:58 PM
Graphical capabilities and development budgets are only loosely linked. The way DaLagga puts it is accurate - having a machine with the capability of improved graphics (and other technological improvements) means that the maximum that a developer can spend is higher.

However, even considering that, there are some important things to note.

The main thing is that this generation of consoles, as well as games with increased budgets, also allows for games with decreased budgets. There was a certain minimum fixed cost to previous generations simply from the fact that the games came on a physical format and you couldn't order a small run, so you needed to pay for discs, pay for transport, pay for storage, and you needed to press some fairly large number of discs just to make it worth your while doing all of that, and all of that implied a minimum budget of hundreds of thousands of US dollars before you even began writing code. Nowadays the minimum cost is the cost of the code plus the dev kits (which are really only a consideration for the first game of any development studio).

Secondly, a lot of development costs have already hit their effective ceiling. Take a look at, say, Gran Turismo 5. Cars are modelled with extreme detail, far more detail than can possibly be used on the PS3 or even by the next generation of consoles (no matter how powerful they turn out to be). Coders spend years developing a physics engine and then cutting it down to work on PS3. Sound is licensed from bands at the highest available quality. None of this can feasibly get dramatically more expensive next generation. Some parts of development may actually get slightly cheaper as new consoles remove old limitations and reduce the need for assets to be iteratively reduced in quality.

Thirdly, even with very limited graphical capabilities, it's always been possible for developers to spend insane amounts of money on making a game. Shenmue is a good example - on the (easy-to-develop-for) Dreamcast, it cost tens of millions of US dollars to create (estimates saying US$70m, although how this factors in the second game is unknown). This is probably really just another example of development costs hitting a ceiling (as above with GT5), but it's worth highlighting to say that the possibility of development costing obscene amounts of money is nothing new.