PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
The Development Bomb
July 31st 2002, 21:29 CEST by Talion

Over the years, the time required to develop an action computer game (and other types as well, but the action genre is easiest to trace back) has steadily increased.  In the side-scroller days, making a game took a few months.  Now it takes a few years.  We all know this, but the question must be raised: how long will it take in 2005?  2010?

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, predicting that overpopulation would make life miserable in the 1980s and untenable in the 1990s.  Well, that didn't happen.  Now it serves to warn us about extrapolating from current trends.  However, the book failed in its predictions not in terms of the population increases but in other areas.  Ehrlich did not anticipate that agricultural advances would cause a food increase that outstripped the population increase.

Enough about Ehrlich.  Games take a long time to make.  That's a fact we all understand.  However, they have been taking longer and longer.  Max Payne took four years, DNF is taking heaven knows how long, and it looks like Doom III will take four years (starting its development after Quake 3's release, though the content developers did work on Q3:TA for a while).  TF2 is MIA, and if George Broussard (or was it Scott Miller, can't remember) is to be believed, Valve is secretly working on Half-Life II.  Whatever they're doing, it's taking a long time.

OK, so it takes 4 years to make a good action game.  In the past it didn't take four years.  Go back far enough and it took four months.  Now go forward five or ten years.  Now how long does it take?  If I was actually willing to do any research for a PC topic, which I am not, I would graph the trend and use that to make a guess.  Since research is out, I will pull a number of out my lazy bum and say we could be looking at 6 or 8 year development times.  Could this be?

Maybe, but it seems ridiculous.  The economics of 4 year development cycles are bad enough.  8 years is when it becomes a philanthropic rather than capitalistic endevour.  Where and how will the trend halt?  According to the lovable 3DR tag team, it takes 4 years to make a Great Game, and since everyone seems to be doing it we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  Doesn't the 4 year number stem from the need to outdo the previous generation of games?  How will 3DR outdo themselves for Duke 5 or whatever they end up doing?  How many years will it take?

Naturally there are exceptions to this rule.  American McGee's Alice took about a year to develop.  Development time figures are hard to get and as I said I'm busting my butt here, but I'm sure there are other quick-to-market FPS.  However, they remain exceptions, and the A-list companies continue to lengthen their development cycles.  Where will it end?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: The Development Bomb

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by Leslie Nassar
2002-07-31 21:30:53
http://departmentofinternets.com
Thinking...

i like monkeys.  are you a monkey?
#2 by HoseWater
2002-07-31 21:33:42
barneyque@hotmail.com
I blame warez.
#3 by BobJustBob
2002-07-31 21:34:33
I think we'll see more licensed game engines, thus freeing up more time for content creation and shortening overall development time.

So there.
#4 by chris
2002-07-31 21:35:48
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
I expect what you'll see is specialized development houses... guys you outsource work to. So you have a main core of people working on the games, but you need more architectural meshes? You go to "architectural meshes -r- us" and give them the basic gist of the type of levels you're creating, and the type of architecture you need.

They create, give you the meshes, get paid, move on to the next product.

You take the meshes, tweak them, skin them, whatever... and get them into your levels.

Total cost: Far less than hiring two or three fulltime modelers for two years.

-chris
#5 by jafd
2002-07-31 21:37:32
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, predicting that overpopulation would make life miserable in the 1980s and untenable in the 1990s.  Well, that didn't happen.

It didn't?

Everything is peaches and roses in the third world, right?

#6 by chris
2002-07-31 21:38:19
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
Oh, and also, lots of stuff is going to end up being done procedurally. Like... you make one rock texture, and you can use that to procedurally generate infinitely repeating, non-tiling textures. That sort of thing.

-chris
#7 by Leslie Nassar
2002-07-31 21:38:48
http://departmentofinternets.com
chris:

I expect what you'll see is specialized development houses... guys you outsource work to.

I agree.

i like monkeys.  are you a monkey?
#8 by Post-It
2002-07-31 21:58:28
keithlee@speakeasy.net
BOOM!

Comment Signature
#9 by Your Friend
2002-07-31 22:04:24
I don’t think the development time will grow much longer than it is now for most games and in the not-too-distant future the time to develop will in fact shrink from what it is now.  The difference will be that programmers won’t be writing everything from scratch.  Ala the rise of middleware, outsourcing and more complex APIs….  If you look at DirectX as one example, there are a ton of features in there (via D3D itself and D3DX) that could save the programmer a lot of time, such as efficient and flexible animated mesh handling, pre-existing fairly-well optimized matrix-classes, etc.  These aren’t for everyone, but they are good enough to do the job well in most cases.  Sadly, game programmers have the worst case of NIH (not invented here syndrome) of any group of developers, so they’ve been slow to adopt these time-savers, but eventually they’re going to need to use them in order to compete in the real world, and the programming time required for new games will drop.  Also, sadly, there is now little in the way of cross-platform equivalents to these technologies, which can be a big issue for those who aren’t developing solely for PCs.

On the art side (which is increasingly where most of the time is spent), things are different and I think art content creation is still going to be an issue for a number of years, but I think it will eventually sort itself out too by way of technology.  I believe you can measure in years, not decades, the time when you’ll be able to take a 3D ‘snapshot’ of a person (or other real-world object) using fairly inexpensive, almost consumer-level, systems, and this snapshot will be easily converted to a solid patch-based mesh, fully textured and bump-mapped, algorithmically boned (for the canned robust motion physics simulation system) and ready to be loaded into DirectX 13 via one function call.  Of course, you’ll still need artists to oversee the process and probably to do some post-processing to keep everything consistent to some artistic vision, but technology will help a lot.  Similarly a lot of world geometry will be procedurally generated and/or created at a higher level of abstraction than simple polygons by artists using more advanced tools.   A lot of the framework for this kind of stuff has been presented over the last few years at SIGGRAPH, etc, but it will still be a while yet before it hits mainstream game development use.

In short, the amount of time it may take to develop a good game in the future doesn’t frighten me too much… However, what does give me pause is that we may wind up with a situation where a lot of the middleware glue that holds future-modern games together is priced out of the range of small developers, making it very difficult for them to compete with established developers.
#10 by Your Friend
2002-07-31 22:06:14

I think we'll see more licensed game engines, thus freeing up more time for content creation and shortening overall development time.


Keep in mind that a mis-managed game project will still spiral out of control even if using an existing licensed engine (or three).  I won't mention any specific names to avoid being labelled a troll, so use your imagination to fill in the blanks.
#11 by Bailey
2002-07-31 22:12:28
It's impressive how much time I can save just by looking for the kanji.

They're not piss-drinking contests so much as attempts to drink as much piss as possible. There are no prizes involved, this is just a way of life for the participants.
#12 by deadlock
2002-07-31 22:13:00
http://www.deadlocked.org/
Completely off-topic and a bit behind the times but... is it just me or does Devil May Cry have the most redundant save system of any game, ever ? You can save anywhere but - and here's the clever bit - when you reload your game, it puts you back to the start of the mission anyway! What the fuck ? It even records your playtime at the time of saving, how many times you've saved thus far, but you still end up restarting the mission the next time you boot up. Unless I'm missing something, but I don't think I am...

When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ?
Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right
#13 by jafd
2002-07-31 22:13:29
My scroll wheel is smokin!!

#14 by Matthew Gallant
2002-07-31 22:16:00
http://www.truemeaningoflife.com
Saying "I'm ignoring the troll" is a faux pas. Tsk tsk.

Current market value of the Max Payne IP according to a comparison of the market capitalization of Take Two pre- and post- sale: approx. -$185,000,000.
#15 by Bailey
2002-07-31 22:16:43
Commenting on my comment about ignoring the troll only reinforces the faux pas! We are brothers-in-faux!

They're not piss-drinking contests so much as attempts to drink as much piss as possible. There are no prizes involved, this is just a way of life for the participants.
#16 by jafd
2002-07-31 22:17:44
I only get on the bandwagons with a wet bar.

#17 by PogoTribal
2002-07-31 22:18:04
U R gay0r

Love... biochemically related to consuming large quantities of chocolate.
#18 by bago
2002-07-31 22:31:44
manga_Rando@hotmail.com
*insert ehrlich is an idiot rant here*

iamelectro
#19 by Your Friend
2002-07-31 22:40:31
It amuses me that I made a completely rational, on-topic post and then there were about 5 messages directly or indirectly related to what a troll I am.  Clearly I have reached a new level of trolling ability.  My troll-fu is so good that I do not even have to use it, people are frightened merely of the potential of my using it.

Yes, bow to my troll-fu!

In all seriousness, I've posted maybe 4 real trolls to PC ever out of hundreds, if not thousands of non-troll posts.  Pretty funny how the stereotyping thing works.
#20 by LesJarvis
2002-07-31 22:43:01
as revenues go up, teams will increase in size, and production time will go down.  the japanese and EA are already way ahead on this.  Square completed Final Fantasy X in something like 18 months, and that's a *huge* production.  as the american game market continues to increase, this will start being more and more commonplace.  EOD!!!!@1!1!1@$@!#

Don't, for heavens sake, be afraid of talking nonsense!  But you must pay attention to your nonsense.
#21 by Matt Perkins
2002-07-31 22:43:45
wizardque@yahoo.com http://whatwouldmattdo.com/
YF

Once you go troll, you don't go back...or something.

I like pretending I can spell.
#22 by HoseWater
2002-07-31 22:47:11
barneyque@hotmail.com
You must pick your first post with care.
#23 by Your Friend
2002-07-31 22:49:41

as revenues go up, teams will increase in size, and production time will go down.  the japanese and EA are already way ahead on this.  Square completed Final Fantasy X in something like 18 months, and that's a *huge* production.  as the american game market continues to increase, this will start being more and more commonplace.  EOD!!!!@1!1!1@$@!#


Lets hope the Americans can do it without turning their games into dull barely interactive movies!
Um, kidding aside, I believe there is a lot of truth to this.  Some people might chime in with the mythical man month argument, but they'd be off-base because programming isn't the bottleneck for games anymore, content creation is.  Large, Disney-like studio production probably will be a big part of the game industry in the future, sadly.
#24 by crash
2002-07-31 22:49:59

It amuses me that I made a completely rational, on-topic post and then there were about 5 messages directly or indirectly related to what a troll I am.  Clearly I have reached a new level of trolling ability.  My troll-fu is so good that I do not even have to use it, people are frightened merely of the potential of my using it.

see also.

"Everyone knows the best way to live life is to troll messageboards." --Warren Marshall
#25 by bago
2002-07-31 22:50:30
manga_Rando@hotmail.com
But, because we are a free market, people WILL come up with solutions to the content problem, be they specialized design studios ala chris, advanced toolsets, as proposed by your friend, or something really nifty like a magic hat. No matter though, it'll take care of itself. The big bucks go to whoever can figure it out first.

iamelectro
#26 by Shadarr
2002-07-31 22:58:38
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
I've posted maybe 4 real trolls to PC


Now that was a troll.  So I guess that puts you at 5.

Regarding your other comments, I think you're mostly right.  The time game engines take to develop may increase, but the number of games which use their own engine will decrease.  FPS's are already almost down to just two engines, there are maybe half a dozen RPGs that use the Infinity engine, and I expect we'll see the same thing with RTS's soon.  The longer a game takes to make, the more it has to sell to break even.  If you can cut two years off your dev cycle by using the Unreal2K3 engine rather than write your own, without in any way affecting the fun-ness of the game, who wouldn't?
#27 by chris
2002-07-31 23:29:16
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
Cool, I'm glad that I can now take credit for the specialized design studios concept. Time to trademark/patent, and LET THE MONEY ROLL IN!

-chris
#28 by deadlock
2002-07-31 23:29:57
http://www.deadlocked.org/
Assuming that the holy grail for game (graphic-) engine developers - and, indeed, those involved in other CG-related areas - is photorealism and that that grail is ultimately attainable*, there will come a time when the technical differences between successive generations of game engines are negligible and largely transparent to the end user. Choosing the engine that you go with will depend to an enormous degree on the quality of the tools that accompany that engine, the support and, of course, the licensing fees. I'm sure that this already happens.

Improved graphics won't be a selling factor at this point, because all of the available engines will essentially produce the same results. So, I feel that at this point, game developers will largely be involved in the creation of content and game assets. Actual engine work will mostly be on the non-graphic related side of things: controls, interfaces etc. Will this actually make for quicker development times ? I dunno...

* maybe photorealism isn't unattainable, in which case there'll be an upper limit on the kind of thing that can be achieved with video/computer game graphic engines; the net result is still the same.

When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ?
Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right
#29 by Talion
2002-07-31 23:41:46
talion@evilemail.com
#3 BobJustBob
I think we'll see more licensed game engines, thus freeing up more time for content creation and shortening overall development time.

Max Payne, Daikatana, and Duke Nukem Forever were all licensed-engine games.  Everything I've read indicates that a substantial amount of programming work is done by licensees on the engines they buy.

#5 jafd
Everything is peaches and roses in the third world, right?

Nope, but Ehrlich was talking about here in America and made very specific predictions about effects on America which we don't need to go into since this is a gaming forum.  In any case, the lack of peaches and roses in the third world is not due to population pressures, but distribution issues which depending on who you ask are the fault of the greed of America and multinational corporations or the political and economic instability in those regions.

#9 YF
Sadly, game programmers have the worst case of NIH (not invented here syndrome) of any group of developers

That's definitely true, but game programmers also work under some of the stiffest performance constraints of any group of desktop (i.e. not embedded, but the embedded platform isn't known for reuse either) programmers and thus the benefit of specialization is higher.  Or at least the perceived benefit.  It will be interesting to watch and compare id and Epic's engine development since id customizes theirs to their specific game while Epic seems to be aiming for a more generalizable product.
#30 by Talion
2002-07-31 23:47:20
talion@evilemail.com
#27 chris
Cool, I'm glad that I can now take credit for the specialized design studios concept. Time to trademark/patent, and LET THE MONEY ROLL IN!

Since you invented them, do you think they can really provide the consistency of content that Great Games usually have?  Sure, getting 100 or 150 guys working for you for three months is preferable to 20 guys working for several years, but take Half-Life...part of what made it special was the consistency of theme.  You always felt like you were in Black Mesa (until you stepped through the transporter to Xen, but we all know how that turned out).  I read somewhere Valve had a thick document with all sorts of details specified about the shapes of doors, how high wall controls were placed, and so on.  My problem with Quake 1's single player was the utter lack of cohesion.  Now Q1 is the extreme, but I still wonder what the results of massive subcontracting will be.
#31 by Leslie Nassar
2002-08-01 00:00:09
http://departmentofinternets.com
I read somewhere Valve had a thick document with all sorts of details specified about the shapes of doors, how high wall controls were placed, and so on.

Design bibles (as far as art direction are concerned) aren't new, and when it comes to outsourcing they're absolutely required.  Speak to anyone who has dealt with a licensed character and they're sure to have a story about a 600 page document that includes the pantone for the character's belt buckle.

Developers who have an art director who has worked for any period of time in film, TV, or print will make sure that bible exists.  It makes life so much easier when it comes to using outside professionals.  Without that bible, bad things happen.  Let me tell you the story about the coins that became oranges...

i like monkeys.  are you a monkey?
#32 by TheTrunkDr.
2002-08-01 00:03:19
I think with more and more use of established game engines and tools the time won't increase much, besides that if the time it takes to create a game increases too much it won't be financially fesable and get canned. The developpment cycles will be kept at the necessary pace to ensure profits, it's that simple. I also think that the tools used to create the games will improve aswell and make what used to take days only take hours. The only problem I see is engine development, it would seem that in time there would be too many features and too much code to maintain for a game developer to create their own engine, and they would be stuck to licensing one from some other company, it could be that in time creating your own engine for a game isn't possible without the intent to license it out.

However many of the 'features' of an engine are really just a means to get around several of the limits of the hardware, and farther down the road we may not need them. Bumpmaps exist simply because we can't use that many polys so we mess with the normals to make it look like there's more geometry than there is. Lighting is another place that gets complicated because we create so many different kinds of lights (static, dynamic) to get the effects we want with minimal CPU overhead, things like lightmaps are slowly disappearing in favour or full dynamic scenes. As the hardware becomes more and more capable of doing things the way they should be done, the simpler the engines can get... Doom3 is already starting to stream line it's render path by only having dynamic lights. One day there will be no need for bumpmaps because artists will be able to model all the nooks and cranny's they want. Perhaps even per poly collision on everything for all situations will happen. I can see a future where many of the workarounds are dropped and game engines become simple again, one render path for everything, one collision system, one physics system... mmm

ooohh floor pie!
#33 by Talion
2002-08-01 00:05:25
talion@evilemail.com
deadlock, I've thought that for a long time but now I'm reconsidering.  Yes, current graphics technology is heading toward the photorealistic asymptote, but what if the display hardware changes and we get bigger displays, or higher resolutions than 1600x1200, etc.?  I guess then the lmiit is the perception of the human eye.  I don't know what sort of resolution the human eye can see, but I'm guessing it is greater than 1600x1200.  So if suddenly the display isn't a CRT or LCD but goggles that are painting on your retina with lasers, we may need a beefier resolution and more power.  Not to mention a thousandfold increase in polygons wouldn't hurt either, so we can stop using bump maps and other little tricks to fool the eye into thinking they are there.

Eventually I guess there will be a technological pause when we have ocular photorealistic displays and the graphics to drive them.  Until we need an environment card for your computer to drive your spinal cord instead of a display, at least.
#34 by Talion
2002-08-01 00:07:15
talion@evilemail.com
Leslie, yeah, I guess it's just a matter of the game industry being the last group yet again to adopt improvements other fields take for granted.

Let me tell you the story about the coins that became oranges...

Hey, don't leave us hanging here!
#35 by George Broussard
2002-08-01 00:16:28
georgeb@3drealms.com
Max Payne, Daikatana, and Duke Nukem Forever were all licensed-engine games.


Max Payne used its own engine, not a licensed one.
#36 by Leslie Nassar
2002-08-01 00:18:04
http://departmentofinternets.com
Talion:  I have two stories about outsourcing fun, both occured while I was working for VTech;

1.  One of the very first VTech titles was set in a circus.  VTech had artists and animators in India so they figured they'd tap them to work on the title.  So they set them to work and waited for results.  Now as it turned out, circuses in India are a tiny bit different to those in the west.  The art comes back.  The circus looks like a slum, there are kids begging in the streets, drunks everywhere, and handlers are beating their animals...

2.  I had just relocated to Hong Kong.  The animators were in China (Shanghai and Dongguan).  The Shanghai animators were working on the reward graphics (in this case, gold coins with a picture of an anthropomorphized lightbulb on them).  We got back oranges.  Every single animation that was supposed to have coins in them contained oranges.

i like monkeys.  are you a monkey?
#37 by Matthew Gallant
2002-08-01 00:29:16
http://www.truemeaningoflife.com
Fuck photorealism in its well-rendered ass.

What good did photorealism do for Police Academys 3-7?

I'm always more impressed by what can be done within the limits of a technology more than the technology itself. That's what appeals to me about id games, not that they look cool, but that they were able to do that. It's impressive craftsmanship.

BUT

I also am impressed by the craftsmanship in games like Jet Set Radio (and so are all the me-too developers, apparently), and Parappa.

Doing the coolest thing you can think of with a box is all that matters. Then all you have to do is make it into a game.

Current market value of the Max Payne IP according to a comparison of the market capitalization of Take Two pre- and post- sale: approx. -$185,000,000.
#38 by EricFate
2002-08-01 00:42:26
Fuck photorealism in its well-rendered ass.

What good did photorealism do for Police Academys 3-7?


Nothing that Bobcat Golthwait couldn't undo.
#39 by PogoTribal
2002-08-01 00:42:51
Police Academy? WTF are you talkign about.

Love... biochemically related to consuming large quantities of chocolate.
#40 by Your Friend
2002-08-01 00:49:26

Police Academy? WTF are you talkign about.


Police Academy is like the goatse.cx guy.  If you don't already know, stop poking around and be blissfully ignorant.  Now isn't the time to be curious.
#41 by chris
2002-08-01 01:06:23
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
BTW - I agree fully with almost everything Matthew just said.

Only difference is that I think nine times out of ten, id's licensees do more impressive things with the tech than id themselves do.

-chris
#42 by jafd
2002-08-01 01:14:08
#29 -- Oh. Thank you for explaining that part.

#43 by Greg
2002-08-01 02:24:47
Leslie:

1.  One of the very first VTech titles was set in a circus.  VTech had artists and animators in India so they figured they'd tap them to work on the title.  So they set them to work and waited for results.  Now as it turned out, circuses in India are a tiny bit different to those in the west.  The art comes back.  The circus looks like a slum, there are kids begging in the streets, drunks everywhere, and handlers are beating their animals...

Reminds me of that story of some publisher outsourcing development of a football game to some French developers. When the publishers saw the game in action, they were shocked. Not because it was well done (which I heard that it was), but that it wasn't American football. Instead, it was the world's football, known in these parts as soccer.

Who is driving car?! Oh my god, bear is driving car! How can that be?
#44 by bago
2002-08-01 03:10:28
manga_Rando@hotmail.com
Devil may Cry was the kind of RE type game I could get into.. the controls didn't suck and you could actually kick ass. Instead of whine for 15 minutes about the slow ass zombie that will kill you because of your stunning inability to step three feet to your right.

iamelectro
#45 by Mank
2002-08-01 05:31:02
Should it really matter how long it takes to complete a game? It would seem that the economics of developing a game is still entrenched in the "it has to sell (really) well" mindset once it is released. And it is interesting how developement houses can spend upwards of 4 years putting the spit shine and polish on a game, and then mysteriously go belly up when the game doesnt sell well.

It's already been said in another thread how the design document is pretty much an urban legend these days, and it would seem that financial and management issues controls the quality of released games moreso than the orginal design concept. I can't even imagine how a meeting would go between a publisher and a developer on a game idea, where the developer pitched a 6 year developement cycle from the git-go...what publisher in thier right mind would want to assume that kind of risk on anything but a well known and branded franchise?

...on the outside looking in, banned by an epiphany at an EB store....
#46 by Wheelie
2002-08-01 14:28:59
I theory it does not matter how long development takes. Just as Mank writes, it's the bottom line that matters. But you will have a hard time convincing any publisher to go with your project. And those projects that do take forever are either internally financed (not financed directly by the publisher) or the publisher grants (or forces)the developer the right to forgo the initial plan. And after a while the publisher might not aford to cancel a project, hence granting a longer development time to cut the estimated loss.

Wheelie doesn't care about teh funnay. He's a nihilist.
#47 by Wintermute
2002-08-01 14:50:29
lucid@evilemail.com
granting a longer development time to cut the estimated loss.

Can you give me an example of this ? The only loss cutting measure that I have seen used is the 'get it out the door quick' method that I'm sure everyone is familiar with by now.
#48 by Kinetech
2002-08-01 15:15:03
[q]granting a longer development time to cut the estimated loss.[/q]

Daikatana?

Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!
#49 by Wheelie
2002-08-01 16:44:00
When I was in publishing, we were faced with that kind of dilemma all the time. If a publisher’s financial resource are limited, you need to get some kind of profit out from every investment. The "push it out the door" is only viable of there is something to push out. Your reputation to retailers is based on the kind of product they get, and if it sells as good as you told them. If a product is to far from finished, that tactic won't work. Reviews will get bad, and retailers will notice and complain, and lower sales are usually the result.
Retailers are what publishers fear. Rather then to push something of total crap out the door, you gamble and hope that the devs will fix things up in reasonable time. And also, if you are working of some kind of IP, you should always try to keep it up to former standards as to not diminish its value for future releases. And if the IP is used with permission, then you have a third party interest to keep happy. To "push it out" doesn't always work, although sometimes it's the only option left.

Wheelie doesn't care about teh funnay. He's a nihilist.
#50 by Petri Jarvilehto
2002-08-01 20:13:23
petri@remedy.fi http://www.remedy.fi
granting a longer development time to cut the estimated loss.

Can you give me an example of this ? The only loss cutting measure that I have seen used is the 'get it out the door quick' method that I'm sure everyone is familiar with by now.


Basically, what that means is that if the publisher has already spent 4 million on the game, then it's better to spend one more million to finish the game (and hopefully recoup a lot of money), than to cut the project and record 4 million loss.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: The Development Bomb

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]