My general rule of thumb when it comes to this is that if they say “due to rising costs” within the first few sentences it usually means “not enough money for the important people.”
I’ve seen indie devs make more functional and graphically intensive games on a shoe string budget. And then go around and sell it for less than $60.
I think it would be easier for indie devs to keep cost down. They have fewer devs and artists on payroll. The issue with triple A games is that they’re super expensive to produce, and small teams can output excellent work as well.
Let’s be real though, they are only so expensive to produce because they have the notion that bigger and more expensive means better. Just look at what happened with Starfield. You can’t tell me that game wouldn’t be immensely better if there were just like 8 or even less planets. You don’t need to make things as massive and expensive as possible to make a successful game. You just need to have a good idea with a good execution. I’ll play a game like Deep Rock Galactic or RimWorld over and over again, but I got bored of Destiny within a year or so. Heck, I’ve probably put more hours into the Halo games over my life than I ever will in Destiny.
I keep thinking people are going to make my dream game and then they make it too big and then it doesn’t work.
I just want a space game set in a single solar system planets with multiple locations that I can fly around do stuff in. Basically just make the Expanse into game.
But they are always trying to make it the whole sodding universe, and then inevitably say you have FTL, because otherwise it would be boring, and then it turns out that it’s just a bunch of cutscenes playing between various levels and it isn’t a whole cohesive environment at all.
Even Elite Dangerous is guilty of this, although they are much better at hiding it.
My general rule of thumb when it comes to this is that if they say “due to rising costs” within the first few sentences it usually means “not enough money for the important people.”
I’ve seen indie devs make more functional and graphically intensive games on a shoe string budget. And then go around and sell it for less than $60.
Plenty of amazing small studios make great games for a budget of a couple packs of mtn dew and some cheese whiz crackers
I think it would be easier for indie devs to keep cost down. They have fewer devs and artists on payroll. The issue with triple A games is that they’re super expensive to produce, and small teams can output excellent work as well.
Let’s be real though, they are only so expensive to produce because they have the notion that bigger and more expensive means better. Just look at what happened with Starfield. You can’t tell me that game wouldn’t be immensely better if there were just like 8 or even less planets. You don’t need to make things as massive and expensive as possible to make a successful game. You just need to have a good idea with a good execution. I’ll play a game like Deep Rock Galactic or RimWorld over and over again, but I got bored of Destiny within a year or so. Heck, I’ve probably put more hours into the Halo games over my life than I ever will in Destiny.
I keep thinking people are going to make my dream game and then they make it too big and then it doesn’t work.
I just want a space game set in a single solar system planets with multiple locations that I can fly around do stuff in. Basically just make the Expanse into game.
But they are always trying to make it the whole sodding universe, and then inevitably say you have FTL, because otherwise it would be boring, and then it turns out that it’s just a bunch of cutscenes playing between various levels and it isn’t a whole cohesive environment at all.
Even Elite Dangerous is guilty of this, although they are much better at hiding it.