this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
29 points (91.4% liked)

Games

16834 readers
964 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
29
Phil Spencer on what the hell is happening in the games industry (www.polygon.com)
submitted 8 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Throw another year or two into the development of Halo 2, let the workers go home to their families once in a while, and you'd have had something amazing

So, that's gonna have some financial impact.

It sounds like Halo 2 was done in 10 months, which is pretty short. So, okay, say you add another 24 months. Gotta pay your operating costs of about 340% what you originally were going to pay.

That also means that it takes longer until the game can start being sold -- you're basically "paying interest" on any capital tied up until sales start. Say the cost of capital is 5% per year. Your first month is gonna cost another 15% finance overhead instead of under 5% because of the time value of money.

Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing to do. I think that it's generally the case that if you throw more dev time and money at a game, it gets better. But...that isn't free. I see people complaining about game prices, and what I'm asking is that if a game costs a couple times as much to make, are consumers willing to pay a couple times as much?

[โ€“] exocrinous@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago

Bruh, the release of Halo 2 was a phenomenon. That series was shitting gold two decades ago. A few years later, Microsoft was selling 360s at a loss to make their money back on Halo and other games.

The restructuring of the engine meant that there was no playable build of Halo 2 for nearly a year, and assets and environments produced by art and design teams could not be prototyped, bottlenecking development.[16] Griesemer recalled that development was "moving backwards", and after E3 the team realized that much of what the team had worked on for the past two years would have to be scrapped.

So, Halo 2 actually spent 3 years in development, it's just that only 10 months of that was useful work. They could afford another year of development.