Something I can't get my head around.

We all fondly remember playing some old game, being enthralled by its graphics and sound effects, being pulled into a fantasy world.

If the graphics were good enough, then, to provide us with a formative experience that has impressed upon us a love for gaming that will likely last our entire lives, why is it now necessary to have, at minumum, incredible graphics to be taken seriously?

This isn't about bashing anyone's preferences or taking a shot at the industry, etc. I'm just tossing out a baffling notion that has occurred to me many times.

Super Mario 64 was once praised as being beautiful and breathtaking. Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was lauded for being revolutionary and spectacular.

I have never heard of any other thing of beauty or piece of art becoming worthless with age, simply because tastes have changed. Is it possible that we are in the midst of some kind of bubble, where it seems like realistic 3D graphics are the only way, when in reality it's all just temporary and people will soon come to realize that the 3D graphics of the 90's actually had their own unique character that can never be replicated by anything else?

(Edit) We can look at the type of art people enjoy now, like pop surrealism, CG art, comic books and we can not in any way compare these forms to the craftsmanship of the great sculptors of antiquity, who turned cold, hard marble into living things. It really is all just a matter of taste, I think.

 

You can create a game without them and be taken seriously. It's just very much dependent on the audience you're targeting. Just as an example if you were creating a roguelike you could use very simple tile-based graphics and your audience would be happy with it. I'll link a few examples of both paid and free ones.

Paid:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/333300/ADOM_Ancient_Domains_Of_Mystery/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/333640/Caves_of_Qud/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/722730/Cogmind/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/212680/FTL_Faster_Than_Light/

Free:
http://rephial.org/ - Angband
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/ - Dwarf Fortress
https://sites.google.com/site/broguegame/ - Brogue (Brian's Rogue)
https://crawl.develz.org/ - DCSS (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup)
https://www.nethack.org/ - Nethack

 

I thought this was a thought provoking question. I agree with Ryiah that certainly retro gfx are still popular. But you’re right that in my mind it seems older games have less replay value than other art forms. There are whole channels devoted to classic movies and classic music. Where are the classic games? Well the NES classic just sold out— so there’s that. But maybe it’s just harder to play older games. The hardware isn’t as accessible. Old movies play on modern devices. Old games take extra effort: buy a special retro console or run an emulator etcetc.

Another thought I had is that maybe games in some way have some intrinsic quality that is more repetitive than other art forms. A platformer is a platformer in its essence. So If there’s a new version with, one could argue, the same gameplay but better gfx, why play the old one?

It’s certainly puzzling! Curious what others think and appreciate the question which got me pondering too.

 

I understand that people like simplistic 2D graphics in roguelikes, because that genre has largely had a dedicated fanbase who prefers content over graphics. And probably enjoys imagining what the monsters look like more than seeing them.

My point is, specifically, this... why does it seem as though early 3D graphics are gone forever, yet we have 2D graphics that are decades old still being enjoyed?

I really liked the way GoldenEye 64 looked. I liked the way Ocarina of Time looked. They were good in my eyes and I really enjoyed them. I don't remember thinking "I wish this looked more realistic" at all back then. It was great. I wished the worlds were bigger, often. I wished that I could interact with more things in the world, but I was absolutely content with the graphics and convinced they were fabulous.

It may be why I have lost touch with new games. Since PS2 became obsolete, I just don't understand why we're doing this, anymore. Bigger, better, more, more levels, better graphics, more achievements. More weapons, etc.

I jumped off the bandwagon 10 years ago with the increasingly amazing graphics thing. Doesn't do much for me. I like my game characters to look like game characters. You know?

I am happy that Minecraft, at least, demonstrates my point perfectly. Graphics have other qualities than realism. I don't know how much that is currently valued.

 

Well the answer is simple, or it seems so. You'd play the better looking one. However, there is an x factor which I am becoming increasingly cognizant of. It's hard to explain.

Call it the "literary novel effect". In a novel, you are usually given only a few details about a character. The rest you have to imagine. Well, it just so happens that this same thing occurs when you are playing games, as well. And not just with descriptions of characters. Your brain, my brain, is constantly filling in gaps with information so that everything makes sense. Graphics that are really low resolution and light on details leave a lot for the imagination to fill in. I think that's why Metal Gear Solid is such a smash hit even to this day, you had to make up a lot of graphical details and your mind used the music and ambiance and general vibe to do a spectacular job of creating a highly nuanced, sexy experience.

These days, you don't even really need any imagination. It's all put before you. It's not as stimulating as it used to be, at least not for me.

 

The industry and technology is racing for that moment we all know is coming: when games will look like reality. Like a live action movie. We’ll get there soon! My prediction is once that happens we’ll all get over it and will have to break the modes with surrealism and more abstraction— just like the age of modernism in painting. Of course then we’ll all get sick of that too so who knows what’ll emerge then. Probably some new platform altogether! In the meantime there are some surreal/abstract gems out there that’ll have to keep us satisfied. I heard they’re even turning Monument Valley into a movie! So you’re not alone in your desire for the abstract.

 

No. Things just move forward. People still loved the original Mario when Mario 64 came out. And those games were of note because they were cutting edge. At the time. If Turok could have been 4K HDR it would have.

 

There have been some new games released on Steam with Doom/Quake era graphics that have proven to be quite popular.

 

Commander Keen, which remains a very popular game with an active community, is an excellent example of this. It literally started life as a prototype showing off a method of smoothly scrolling the screen in any direction. Previous games had at best only succeeded at scrolling in tile-sized increments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_Keen#Development

 

I suspect it's a matter of relative perception, at least in part.

When looking at new stuff we're stepping forward one iteration at a time and comparing it to other recent stuff. Typically there are a few flaws that are noticeably improved upon to make things look a little nicer, and the new games specifically take advantage of them.

When looking at old stuff we're generally stepping backwards many iterations at a time, because we only look back at the outstanding stuff. We notice it looking "bad" because we're still comparing it to other recent stuff, and neither the tech nor the technique was as advanced then as now.

One other thing I think worth mention is subtlety. When we get something new in 3D graphics we somewhat tend to overdo it. Who remembers bloom being a new thing? For a few months every protagonist in a 3D game seemed to be hung over, with outdoors washed out and over bright, indoors dark, and overdone colour curve transitions between the two.

As another example, compare the colour palettes in Wolfenstein 3D to the palettes in Doom and then Quake. In Wolf the different game elements seemed to be fighting a war over how much of the visible spectrum each could lay claim to. Everything looks deliberately very different to the things around it.



Then we have Doom, with cohesive palettes and clear unifying elements...

... but we can turn lights on and off, so you're sure as heck gonna see lots of that*!

* Not that I'm complaining. It worked.

 

That must be it. We can't stop until somebody reaches the crowning achievement (while standing atop the shoulders of giants, of course) of graphics so realistic that people can't get enough of them.

And then, the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see that it was all in vain. That sorcerer's spell of 4K Ultra HD and dreams of FPS, resolution, algorithms was merely another of man's famous Icarus moments where the notion of could superceded the rationale of should.

We mustn't hastily dismiss such achievements, I suppose. Though ultimately these would-be kings of their trade travail for the wind, people are still having a lot of fun. And that's important.

I just know that ultimately the next evolution is going to be a 180 reversal of the trend of realism, which will also go too far, before we figure out that balance is a thing and lots of artists start focusing on nuance, texture and the ineffable qualities of game art.

I suppose we must first define the spectrum, so Icarus must keep flying even though we all know his fate too well.

 

You have heard of the fashion and technology industries?





Or just art or architectural movements/fashions over time, things have a time and a place where they are trendy and sometimes it is short lived.

 

I don't think it's just graphics though. Other things like controls and game design and the like are major issues also.

The original mario is really rare in that everything in that game stands up. The controls are so tight, the levels so well built, etc. Most other games haven't aged nearly as well, and it's not only about graphics, at all.

 

While trends are indeed changes, there is something called play-ability. Or simply as mentioned, something which hooks players to the game. Given examples are good. But not looking too far, look at Minecraft and its success. There is pixel art, no much more (on unmodded version). I have see many super cool looking games, but what so, if the game play is boring.

The trend is like going for super shiny effect + micro transactions + DLCs now, but really dropping in game quality overall. Steam early access concept do not helps on top of that either.

I finding in past few years that complexity of later title iterations are often stripped down, comparing to its predecessors. Not true for all titles of course. But generally.

I think here may be additional "reducing" trigger, by mobile and console market. This trend may be specifically noticeable for desktop players. From my experience for example, I get really bored quickly with shooters on the consoles. Not sure what was that. Control pads, or just simplicity of the games itself, in comparison to desktop equivalent.

Most of games seams to be made with short life cycle. Play and forget. Which is sad. Not sure how many of them will become classics. I mean games, which you can come back after 5, 10, 15 years and still enjoy.

Or maybe is just because, there is so many of them there and is harder to choose from, while competition has been diluted, under the pressure of fast releases.

Well thats my thoughts.

 

If your argument is that all art will follow the example of several recent decades of design changes of modern consumer electronics, that's fun.

 

On side joke, shown example is missing predicted hologramic and chip in brain devices

 

That's the direction they're headed in but I don't think it's necessarily just because gamers want it. We need to keep in mind that the companies making the hardware are normal businesses and that they would go out of business if they didn't keep selling new hardware. It's hard to sell new hardware though if games aren't steadily requiring more demanding hardware.

It's a bit like how Intel motherboard manufacturers wouldn't be selling as many boards as they are if Intel wasn't constantly abandoning sockets and chipsets. That's not necessarily to say there's a conspiracy but the tech companies do work with each other to some degree (eg creating standards).

 

The success of Minecraft and Roblox have pretty much settled the case that high end graphics are not actually needed for a successful game. Gameplay is far more important.

PUBG has sub-par graphics for a 3rd or 1st person shooter, and for a time was the #1 game on PC until they allowed cheaters to destroy their game.

 

Is it a symptom or is it the disease.

 

Try run one, even in theory, and you will get answer.

 

The way I see it, it's very simple. When you grew up, you didn't want to see graphics from 20 years before. Part of the reason why you enjoyed the graphics so much was that they were cutting edge for the time. The fact that that moment has become frozen in time, for you, is beside the point.

 

Cutting edge relative to what? The graphics were far worse than any animated TV show. There was no sense of realism.

If your argument is that at age 6 I had a working knowledge of the state of the art regarding video game technology and I was only impressed with Super Mario because I was comparing it to Atari games, that's funny. There was no comparison. It was interactive and fascinating. I was teleported to another world. The graphics were good and still are good. They are still imitated to this day.

The idea that graphics have taken some step toward a higher form of existance is something I am getting from a lot of people, here. As if the goal of all graphics was always to achieve photorealism.

Strange that Nintendo continues to produce cartoony games that strive to maintain the spirit and energy of their original characters. Does Nintendo know that their graphics are poorly done?

It could explain why their games are no longer popular.

 

The first time you played with interactive 3D graphics it was new, so you took it for what it was. As you say, "it was interactive and fascinating", so that was enough. Every time after that, it was relative to whatever you were used to seeing previously.

To quote you... "that's funny". Nintendo are killin' it (I assume that bit was sarcasm, right?) but, moreover, these graphics aren't "poorly done" by any reasonable metric.



They're deliberately choosing not to be realistic because and they know their audience doesn't care about that, and with their chosen style they're making stuff that looks gorgeous.

Also keep in mind that a significant portion of their audience also enjoys watching anime, where the same holds true. Instead of spending millions on CG to make stuff look "realistic" they get people to draw stuff by hand and happily embrace the style.

Realism is just one style of many. I don't think it's one that Nintendo have ever chased.

 

I would like bring something interesting, which came to my realization many years ago.
When era of 3D tv emerged there there was hot on relevant topics and its future. Etc.
One thing stuck in my mind, is that after watching 3D video, or game for more than lets say 20 - 30 min, you completely forgetting you are watching 3D spectacle. You nee really something to trigger your brain, that "O hey thats actually in 3D". You brains getting accustom to it. The point is, same as with simplified graphics, brain can fill the gaps easily. Therefore no need for super realistic environment.

While many games trying make surreal experience, many falls into the point, that is so real, it looks fake.
So question will arise, is it worth putting such effort, to make something extremely realistic, while many production does well, keeping simpler. Cartoonish looks of Borderlands2 for example.

Back days perhaps was harder to get good comparison. but hey, I know quite few young people, which can easily recognize difference, between modern CoD and calssic old Doom as an example. And they do question for differences. So is no that kids don't see things. But just give them opportunity. Likely they pick nicer looking game.

 

Cutting edge relative to competitors.

I don't believe realism as such is the key ingredient for what people rave about in new games graphics. It's more about the quality of everything that goes into it. If you look at Pixar movies for example, it apparently takes 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University, using 2000 computers. (It's a 3D movie, but still). It's not realistic graphics, but clearly the technology needed to make it look so good in real-time is nowhere near being here yet, and it's 2018.

Your mileage may vary, but I believe that the people who grew up loving games like Super Mario partly did so because at that time they were the most advanced games ever made - and they were made well.

Again, I don't believe photorealism is the aim. Nobody wants to play COD and have it look like a photo of their backyard or some local national park. Reality isn't all that great when you can distill it with a measure of stylization. Yet I do believe that a 'higher existence' of graphics is certainly something that a lot of people value. I mean, if I could appreciate the whole spectrum of wavelengths and not just the visible range, wouldn't that be in some sense 'better'? Wouldn't it open up my range of experiences? So something that advances the visual aspect of games, in my opinion, has a certain amount of inherent value.

 

The first time I played Super Mario, it was fascinating because I could make the character move and do what I wanted. When I played Legend of Zelda, I was even more captivated. When I saw Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, after years of waiting for its release, I was deeply let down. There wasn't as much interactivity as I had hoped for. Instead, I found Final Fantasy 7 gave more freedom and choice. Metal Gear Solid was another that gave a lot of interaction options between player and environment. The graphics were so-so in all of these games, even at the time of Playstation I had become aware that N64 had better graphics, yet offered few games that captivated me. One exception was Turok: Dinosaur Hunter. That game was very interesting. A lot of exploration and dark, creepy, corridor heavy stages.

After that I enjoyed Grand Theft Auto 3 because it let me have so much freedom.

Then something happened, games became very story heavy, started focusing on graphics, cinematics and other key points needed to stay competitive in an increasingly challenging market with more and more studios opening their doors each year. I saw open worlds with no real depth and linear games with voice acting on all dialogue, but I felt like I wasn't a part of the adventure. I was the guy who pressed "b".

Some games that have interested in me since then, Crackdown, some real time strategy games, and finally I liked Half Life and even though I played it many years after it was made, just two years ago, it is my favorite game overall.

I have never given even a single damn about graphics in all those years. I have played most games with the lowest graphical settings.

I am not alone in this. If you would simply read this thread you would see that.

And yes, I have tried the sequels to most of all of my favorite games. They look better but they still suck eggs.

I want to try Crackdown 3 eventually but I fear they will turn down the open world sandbox and make it a Mass Effect clone.

 

I don't think that is even true. By the time Super Mario was ported to home console, there were even more cutting edge games available at arcades. I remember vividly seeing games like Raiden III and Contra in arcades and then going home to a dusty Sega Genesis and playing games like Mortal Kombat 2 and loving it.

Clearly there is something very wrong with a lot of people's perception of reality.

 

Yes, but the arcade machines cost a never-ending stream of quarters while the home console machines were a one time purchase and to the parents of a child which do you think they're going to point their kids at? Additionally not everyone was within reach of an arcade machine. I definitely was not.

 

I don't know what you mean by 'something very wrong with a lot of people's perception of reality'. People are what they are, preferences for graphics are not a matter of right and wrong.

I would say that maybe there was something about the early games that made them extra special. Like, they were the first video games ever made where you could communicate something graphically that was not a matter of individual pixels, or something like that.

Also, it's possible that the further away that games are from realism, the more they can be enjoyed visually without comparing them to some sort of 'photorealism'. Now that games are much more advanced graphically, there are higher expectations for them to conform to some notion of it.

In the end, I think it is like this. There are certain works of art (or, in some cases, art forms themselves) that will always stand the test of time, regardless of the fact that at the time they were made, they were simply trying to be best. For everyone else, there's the current state of the art, whatever that is. And in between those two is no mans land, where art just looks badly done. Why this is so, nobody knows, but that's the way it seems to be.

 

If you are assessing all games based on their efforts of having "the best" graphics at any given time, and saying only things that were once the best or trying to be the best, you are missing something that is very important to my point. My point is that there are many great games that didn't look the best when they were released, were not trying to be the best looking and still are great games.

When you say to me that Super Mario Bros was only fun because it was once the best looking game, and now it is considered bad looking but still good looking because it was once considered good looking, but other games that were once considered good looking are now bad looking, all just so you can refrain from admitting that I have a point, it makes me wonder why? Why defend the idea that games must have cutting edge graphics? It isn't true. Not even remotely.

I think some folks are just playing the devils advocate tonight.

 

So now the argument is... Super Mario Bros. was only fun because it was the best looking game available that didn't require driving to an arcade and putting coins in a slot.

Of course this ignores all of the other games that were not Super Mario that also had great graphics, including Kirby's Adventure, the best looking NES game of all time, that weren't nearly as popular.

In Mario you could kill enemies in multiple ways. There were branching paths in pipes. Hidden secrets. That's what defines it.

Graphics don't define the game.

 

If graphics were as important as everyone is saying, The Order 1886 would be the most popular game ever made.

 

To be honest, I'd rather see games with the PSX and N64 graphics any day, simply not because they are the greatest graphics, but because they actually used imagination and created a unique game back then. Even if they were using the 'then' cutting edge graphics, they still produced some really remarkable games, what FPS games today really test your mental abilities like they did back in the 90's? I remember when Very Easy was harder than Very Hard lol. And if you didn't write down that password, you were essentially perma-death lol. And need I mention the hard puzzles on games such as Banjo Kazooie, hard to believe that was a kids game, and the puzzles were hard for even adults.

I just really miss them days in gaming, because people weren't afraid to try something new, they just did it. Now days, it's stick with the Norm and cash in. Which there's nothing wrong with that, hey it works. But ultimately, I think these big companies forgot where they came from, from being some small identity making their-self big.

 

Don't forget unturned, that game is more popular on steam than friggin skyrim



Also stardew valley and similar, in fact I have learn that retro 8bits graphics is more popular with the new generation rather than people who grew up with it Which explain why all those fake 8bits graphics has way more than 8bit and just have the chunky visual.

I call that the comic sans effect, people who care about visual tend to lose sight of what's actually attractive in an image, education gives you acquired taste by building meaning behind the craft, up until someone heretic come up with alternative highly consistent meaning and create a new style ... meanwhile the pattern that unite success of any style is simply the ability to connect with an audience, regardless of craft... But seeing things without authorized craft™ succeed really ticks off people who blame it on other people not having taste. I mean you can't be wrong, therefore other people are... I'm definitely one of those cranky guys

 

Super mario bros came out in 1985, I'm pretty sure it was among the best looking for its time.

Nowhere did I say it was only popular because of the graphics. It's a classic game in multiple ways. The point I am making is that if Super Mario Bros had 1975 graphics, it would not have been anywhere near as popular.

I think you missed the point. I said that some art forms remain classic, long after technology advances into something more sophisticated, for a variety of reasons that are hard to pinpoint.

Perhaps this happened with Super Mario Bros, although I'm not certain it's anything more complicated than the fact that it was simply an incredibly good game for its time, in every way. The same way that some people might consider the Model T Ford a classic symbol that people will never look at and simply say "it's not all that good of a car".

In any case, I'm not 'defending' anything. You suggested that people are over-valuing cutting edge graphics. Although I'm crazy about graphics myself, I'm simply trying to provide an explanation for it. I'm not trying to provide a moral explanation for it.

 

Obviously though, without those god rays it would have flunked...

 

I genuinely thought that's what you were doing? Partly because you're arguing against people who agreed with you from the start.

I don't see that argument being made, at all. The point being made there was that home consoles were far more accessible than arcade machines, which had a huge impact on what people chose to play.

For example, despite reviews at the time going nuts over Star Wars: Battle Pod I don't know a single person who's played it because it's only available in arcades and they aren't really a thing in my part of the world.

 

It's true. All of it. And it isn't just limited to games, or even art. A guy makes an experimental thing that deviates from the norm and everybody says that can't work. It won't work. Nobody will like that because this is what people like... and this is why people like it that way. It's not that we disagree, it's simply that the guy making the experimental thing is wrong and needs to go back to school.

Then the thing is a big hit. So the sayers of the nay say, ah, they know what happened. The consumers are not aware of what they are supposed to like, because they have been perverted by uncultured degeneracy such as The Rap Music, The Beer Pong and The Foosball.

Meanwhile, the experimenter becomes the new normal, and then eventually they all imitate him and come up with an explanation why his experiment is superb and that it was brilliant not because of him, but despite him.

In the end the experimenter has a 128 IQ and merely had a couple of beers and said "I bet this would be awesome if we did it this way because it appeals to me and I think it would appeal to others." And that was all there was behind it.

DJT tells a story about an anonymous artist he was friends with in NYC back in the 70's. He went to meet him. He said something like, "Do you want to see me make 25,000 dollars in 5 minutes?" Of course he did. The guy just throws buckets of paint on a canvas and then he's like, "that's it. Let's go to lunch."

People are curious creatures.

 

As indies we have this freedom to do whatever we want and still have people give it consideration. It is a very open minded audience. In most cases, being different is just as important as being good.

 

Exactly.

Believe it or not. The first "Perfect Dark" on the N64, had no schedule, had no specific mission plan, the game was finished when it was finished, no deadlines, etc. One of (if not the best) games ever made in my opinion to this day.
Just wished deadlines didn't exist today, to allow ultimate creative freedom to make it what you truly want before releasing something that isn't what you envisioned from the start... I know, I know, companies generally use deadlines so people (dont) sit on something specific for a long time, so they can make their money... Which goes back to my other post, these big companies forgot that at one time they were as small as you an I, they've forgotten (the company), what it was like to create amazing things. Not saying the Employees are like that, but the Company as a whole is, like that. But you can't blame them either.

It's sorta a double edged sword honestly.
On one side of it, you can sit on your game until it's perfect (or close to what you at least envisioned to be satisfied).
Which may or may not the the right thing to do - worked out well for Perfect Dark.
But on the other-side, company gives you a year to finish something, you finish it, company gets there money, next project.

 

One of my favorites. And one of the best stories about game development. Rare was always highly regarded by Nintendo, because they made games that were true to the spirit of gaming. A lot of people have lost their way, and have lost touch with the idea of having fun for the sake of having fun. There's an imperceptible quality that can only be felt, not seen or heard, that results from a fun-loving approach from the very beginning. Rather than approaching everything in a routine, boilerplate manner for the sake of finishing on time, to work with the intent of making the most enjoyable thing you can. It's not something you would expect most people to appreciate, or even understand.

 

The "open minded audience" is practically true, but have you thought to consider why?

It pretty much comes down to the "people" you mention. As small studios we can often be happy with tens of thousands of sales, where large studios working with large scopes need hundreds of thousands, or millions. Games made by big studios have to engage a large proportion of gamers. The games they choose and their designs reflect that, as they have to maximise appeal.

On the other hand, when a small studio makes a game they can often be satisfied with tens of thousands of sales, so rather than broadening appeal they can focus their target market. It's not that you're looking for "open minded" people, it's that you can be less concerned with pleasing everybody and, as a result, make more polarising decisions.

Note that "AAA" game studios today tend to be much larger than they were in the '90s. Goldeneye was developed by around a dozen people from memory. A quick read on Perfect Dark says the team size "tripled", which sounds huge, but compared to "AAA" teams today is still very small. As an example, when Free Radical (the company the original developers left to form) went bankrupt in 2008 they had 185 staff. Developers having tight deadlines and management isn't because they've lost the sense of fun. It's because makiung games is freakin' expensive and the clock's ticking down with every paycheck you need to sign.

Perfect Dark could survive as long as it did the way it did because it was a small team (compared to today) coming off the back of another highly successful project. It also caused a bunch of the original developers to leave and start a competing company, so there's that, too.

 

If a single person indie makes 1 millions sales ... he is a millionaire
If a AAA team makes 1 millions sales ... they are filling bankruptcy and selling their child

Deadline talk is a survivor bias anyway, worked so well for duke nukem forever ...

Anyway considering rules of thumb 10 000€/month overhead per employees, team of:
- 1 persons = 10 000€ -> 120 000€
- 10 peoples = 100 000€ month -> 1 200 000€ per year
- 100 peoples = 1 000 000€ month ->12 000 000 per years
Baseline break even for 3 years dev at 40€ per games sold after all cuts:
- 3 x 120 000 /40 = 9000 units sold
- 3 x 1 200 000 /40 = 90 000 units sold
- 3 x 12 000 000 /40 = 900 000 units sold
But then you must account that you need 3 years overhead to get the next games so you double that number to get what it takes to just be on edge of not drowning, which mean any failure kills. And triple again if you are indie and don't have the quality to afford the 40€ per game but the 20€ arbitrary value threshold of the market, god forbid you get into free 2 play. 27 000 units full price seems like the only decent low point, to break even "comfortably", to not be a starving artist, and that's on a market where stability is finding unicorn level achievement (I mean battlefield is down 85% even before it sold relative to previous performance, where are all the skate games?)

That's basic math, we should always remind ourselves those simple number when discussing what it takes to make games. And the smaller you are the more nimble you get to save cost. I'm operating at 6000€ a years currently! BUT I need 60 000 units to break even due to low expected prices, long dev, etc ...

 

It's not the best way to earn money. It's a more profitable hobby than buying a boat. It's more stable than making a YouTube channel. When people talk business sense and games, it doesn't make any sense. If you don't do it just to do it, for the enjoyment of it, and treat it as an artform in itself... I don't see the point. If you're gonna invest in something for a financial return, there's dozens of smarter ways. It has to be a passion and something that brings you enjoyment, and preferably you fund it with something else.

The success you find should be nothing but a scoring system to see how well you did. If it's ship or starve, you're gonna make compromises with integrity and quality. I think a game made in spare time over many years without pressure will be better than a game made in a short span with pressure. And players don't care about why things are rushed or sub par, they just see a lack of quality with no context.

Ironically a single highly polished game made by a part time dev over the course of years could end up making much more money than 15 projects made by a full time dev in that same span.

The major studios meet deadlines by experience and sticking to games they know well, they aren't rushing. Nintendo has a full staff of playtesters and coders experimenting all the time with new ideas, there is no rushing. Somehow a guy thinks he can make a living rushing games out to a saturated market place, I don't see it.

 

I agree that "ship or starve" is a bad thing.

However, if you want to make bigger and better games then getting some skill in the commercialisation side of things is still really important. The numbers before don't lie. That's how much it costs to make a game. As soon as you want to make something bigger than fits into your and your friends' spare time then those are the numbers you need to face.

 

That wouldn’t be ironic, it would be rare, and spectacular. If that did happen, that is ignoring the thousand other devs failing to make any money and the many thousands who never even complete a game. The odds of part time dev haveing a huge hit is extremely low. It happens, but not often at all. On the flip side, the odds of a full time professional dev getting paid, is pretty much 100%.

 

You might think that, but generally speaking you would be wrong. First most games are a few years in development. But more importantly, pressure is relative. It is a very common trait that most creative professionals share that working under constraints (time, resources, etc) perform at their best. Not just artists, but engineers and pretty much any other creative field. It's how many of us are wired. So pressure and time really have little to no impact on wether a game is better, it is the team, types of people involved and nature of the product. It would be like saying games made while the developers are sitting on fabric chairs would be better than games made using vinyl chairs. One could draw a correlation, but literally everything else in the process has a bigger impact.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it were actually the reverse. Game projects that never face scrutiny or pressure probably tend to grow in all sorts of disfunctional and meandering directions.

 

Indeed. Virtually every successful small team or solo game is down or lead by someone with drive and tenacity. Internal focus/pressure and timeliness are no different than external ones, and are what it takes to ship a game.

 

I think there's a Goldilocks zone there. There's an ideal level of pressure that keeps people motivated and focused without being overwhelming. A total lack of pressure can lead to tons of wasted time, lack of focus, but too much pressure can break the spirit.

There are endless examples of professional studios that broke their employees. It certainly happens.