PDA

View Full Version : Rein puts dev cost for Gears of War at $10m


nofosu
10-06-2006, 12:04 AM
Don’t know if this has been posted.

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=20176

"Speaking at the London Games Summit, Rein said that it's taken a team of 20 - 30 people around two years to complete work on GOW - arguing that despite claims by some industry figures, it's still possible to create next-gen titles using medium sized teams and without gigantic budgets."

Wow that’s quite amazing, but then again, they do own the Unreal Engine. I guess that did cut out some of the money needed. What do you guys think?

EnlightenedPixel
10-06-2006, 12:19 AM
Im too lazy to read the article. but how is $10M production cost "small" for a video game?
Most of that money had better be going into the pockets of the tallented people working on it and not the execs and sales reps.

GreyWolf_OPS
10-06-2006, 01:25 AM
Its small considering how Sony is saying that companies need to spend at least 20-30 million dollars to make a decent game for the next-gen consoles. Mark Rein is call their bullshit. Not to mention he also said Sony's "Next-gen doesnt start till we say so" was bullshit as well. More or less Mark has been pulling the bullshit flag on Sony a lot these last couple of days.

Kion
10-06-2006, 01:51 AM
Its small considering how Sony is saying that companies need to spend at least 20-30 million dollars to make a decent game for the next-gen consoles. Mark Rein is call their bullshit. Not to mention he also said Sony's "Next-gen doesnt start till we say so" was bullshit as well. More or less Mark has been pulling the bullshit flag on Sony a lot these last couple of days.

it depends on the size of your team, 20-30 is a small team. We are pushing 80, I've heard of other studios using even more ppl. How they kept their team to 20-30 is amazing! i would like to know how they did it.

chadtheartist
10-06-2006, 01:58 AM
He said the company (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=20176#) was also able to save money by outsourcing to new subsidiary Epic Games China.

I'm thinking that's how.

GreyWolf_OPS
10-06-2006, 02:17 AM
it depends on the size of your team, 20-30 is a small team. We are pushing 80, I've heard of other studios using even more ppl. How they kept their team to 20-30 is amazing! i would like to know how they did it.

I seem to recall one of the guys at Epic saying that they keep the size down by having extremely tallented people working for them. I mean the guy that does their concept art(hawkprey) is just amazing. I mean Epic could be like Digital Domain where its usually senior artists that work there. Or thats what I have heard about DD.

Theres also the fact that they have a couple of well known people in the game industry working under one house. I think that helps out a lot.

EnlightenedPixel
10-06-2006, 02:47 AM
Its small considering how Sony is saying that companies need to spend at least 20-30 million dollars to make a decent game for the next-gen consoles. Mark Rein is call their bullshit. Not to mention he also said Sony's "Next-gen doesnt start till we say so" was bullshit as well. More or less Mark has been pulling the bullshit flag on Sony a lot these last couple of days.

He said the company was also able to save money by outsourcing to new subsidiary Epic Games China.

I think that has more to do with it.

Also, I have yet to see ANY "next gen" games released on PC or 360 reciently. So we'll just have to see about Sony's claims. I think Nintendo may have something to say about it though. Graphics wise, maybe not, but next-gen interface, yes.

Kion
10-06-2006, 02:51 AM
I seem to recall one of the guys at Epic saying that they keep the size down by having extremely tallented people working for them. I mean the guy that does their concept art(hawkprey) is just amazing. I mean Epic could be like Digital Domain where its usually senior artists that work there. Or thats what I have heard about DD.

Theres also the fact that they have a couple of well known people in the game industry working under one house. I think that helps out a lot.

yeah i don't know about that, epic has talented artist,that does help with team size, i know a couple of them, but to create that amount of quality art takes alot of people, the outscoucing that was mentioned above would be how you would keep a team to 20-30 people on a next gen title. Our ps2 games were made with 20-30. maybe i should just call my friend and ask. Maybe i should read the article:)

MrPositive
10-06-2006, 02:51 AM
Who gives a rat's tuckus how much was spent on the game and how much they saved with a small team if the game in the end turns out to be crap. Now if it gets reviewed highly and gets the 360 really rolling, then lets start a praise thread for their small numbers. Till then who knows and why should we care.....

GreyWolf_OPS
10-06-2006, 03:22 AM
Who gives a rat's tuckus how much was spent on the game and how much they saved with a small team if the game in the end turns out to be crap. Now if it gets reviewed highly and gets the 360 really rolling, then lets start a praise thread for their small numbers. Till then who knows and why should we care.....

Way to put a Positive Spin on it Mr. Positive.

RuinedMessiah
10-06-2006, 03:37 AM
Well, it's an accurate spin. Companies love to talk about how much went into games. Like how much money was funneled into Godfather or even talking about how much money was throw at Final Fantasy XII. Likewise, when a game is produced on the cheap, they love talking about that as well.

Money invested in a game does NOT equal a quality game. Period. I think the following quote from Ted Price in regards to Ratchet & Clank gadgetry sums it up best.

"Sure, we have tons of ideas and many even get far along but not every one makes the game. In fact, we chop down a whole lot of ideas just by asking this questions. Is X fun to play/shoot?"

I mean, hell. I'm currently working with a small group of people right now making a game in our freetime. If it works out the way we hope, it will be a fun japanese style RPG with an interesting take on the genre. If it ships, it will have been produced for slightly under $10,000 since that's the price of the tools we are using. I mean, hell. Do you think the empire of Lumines was built with millions?

GreyWolf_OPS
10-06-2006, 03:47 AM
Well, it's an accurate spin. Companies love to talk about how much went into games. Like how much money was funneled into Godfather or even talking about how much money was throw at Final Fantasy XII. Likewise, when a game is produced on the cheap, they love talking about that as well.

Money invested in a game does NOT equal a quality game. Period. I think the following quote from Ted Price in regards to Ratchet & Clank gadgetry sums it up best.

"Sure, we have tons of ideas and many even get far along but not every one makes the game. In fact, we chop down a whole lot of ideas just by asking this questions. Is X fun to play/shoot?"

I mean, hell. I'm currently working with a small group of people right now making a game in our freetime. If it works out the way we hope, it will be a fun japanese style RPG with an interesting take on the genre. If it ships, it will have been produced for slightly under $10,000 since that's the price of the tools we are using. I mean, hell. Do you think the empire of Lumines was built with millions?

If you read the interview, Mark talks about how he was pulling the bullshit flad on the 20 - 30 million needed for nextgen games. He stated that they pulled off the Gears with less than 10 million. He made the statement so developers know that the budgets don't necessarily need to be increased to the expectations that Sony said for next-gen development.That was his main purpose for speaking up.

ambient-whisper
10-06-2006, 04:09 AM
Who gives a rat's tuckus how much was spent on the game and how much they saved with a small team if the game in the end turns out to be crap. Now if it gets reviewed highly and gets the 360 really rolling, then lets start a praise thread for their small numbers. Till then who knows and why should we care.....

so far, im in the same ballpark. the game, while looking very nicely done on the artistic side, still feels like its nothing new. maybe its new to the unreal engine, but the way it plays, the things you do in that game is nothing new to even games that have been out for several years now. just download the videos from gametrailers. if there was something super new to the game that would really give us a new experience, then it would have been shown off by now. to me it seems that epic and microsofts intentions were almost entirely based on visuals, and a fake sense of "maturity" level. ( some of the dialogue in the game seems soo juvenile, its not funny )

i have the same feeling about assasins creed. while it looks like an amazing demo, if the game doesnt spice things up with VERY different situations and a good story, then it will feel just like the prince of persia games. ( ie. a good game demo for a few hours, but overall a very boring game due to lack of creativity throughout the game, the abundance of hand holding by the games camera system, the fact that its entirely linear, very repetitive in nature, and no great story holding the whole thing together ).

( i kinda wish that shadow of the colossus looked on the same level ( quality wise ) as assasins creed though.

Laa-Yosh
10-06-2006, 10:28 AM
I seem to recall one of the guys at Epic saying that they keep the size down by having extremely tallented people working for them. I mean the guy that does their concept art(hawkprey) is just amazing.

GOW's main concept artist (at least for the enviroment) has been John Wallin: www.johnwallin.net

mv
10-06-2006, 10:56 AM
James Hawkins (hawkprey) really gave the look of gow as far as characters , vehicles, and weapons go (same for UT2k7) . Not sure if John Wallin made much more than the enviro concept pieces we saw some time ago.

But yeah they seem to have a great workflow at Epic, the GDC conference was very interesting, they do a lot of reuse of elements. Also the concept stage is much more advanced than in usual video game production, hawkprey makes most of his design work in 3D, tests how it works in animation and all, and then the modelers can work super fast on that...

RuinedMessiah
10-06-2006, 02:23 PM
If you read the interview, Mark talks about how he was pulling the bullshit flad on the 20 - 30 million needed for nextgen games. He stated that they pulled off the Gears with less than 10 million. He made the statement so developers know that the budgets don't necessarily need to be increased to the expectations that Sony said for next-gen development.That was his main purpose for speaking up.

Tell you what, if this game can deliver 20-30 hours of content without constantly reusing hallways and other locals (ala Halo) and can keep a steady framerate (which according to many of the videos released thus far, isn't likely), then he can call a bullshit flag. Because then his product would have spoken for itself and NOT for the financer and publisher of said product.

valentine
10-06-2006, 05:35 PM
Im too lazy to read the article. but how is $10M production cost "small" for a video game?
Most of that money had better be going into the pockets of the tallented people working on it and not the execs and sales reps.

thats exactly what i thought! good one.

heavyness
10-06-2006, 05:40 PM
there was an event in Chicago and a bunch of people got to play Gears of War and liked it...

http://www.aeropause.com/archives/2006/10/gears_of_war_wh.php

most game blogs have been covering this. as for something new, i've been reading they have added some new game mechanics into the mix. sure, they didn't reinvent the wheel, but not every game has to.

-reloading your gun is a mini game in it's self. a meter bounces back and forth and if you hit it at the right time, you load your gun faster, wrong time, and it jams.
-when you get killed, you can keep yourself alive by jamming on the A button and a team member can come over and revive you. but if an enemy comes over, they can "curb stomp" and end you.

PhilOsirus
10-07-2006, 01:02 AM
How they kept a small team to make this game for 10 million is amazing? How about taking a few years to make it? Some big sellers released in the last two years have been made in less than 10 months, but in such cases you need bigger teams.

A 30 man staff for a game that took at least 3 years to make is no suprise. No offense to anyone who worked on it, just saying:)

Edit: I think the Shadow of the Colossus team was even smaller, but it took them almost four years to make the game. And isn't Gears of War' single player mode around 8 hours long?

Brettzies
10-07-2006, 01:41 AM
Tell you what, if this game can deliver 20-30 hours of content without constantly reusing hallways and other locals (ala Halo) and can keep a steady framerate (which according to many of the videos released thus far, isn't likely), then he can call a bullshit flag
And isn't Gears of War' single player mode around 8 hours long?
Yeah, something along those lines. I remember reading 10-12, depending on how good you are I suppose. But they said it also had "lots of replayability." 20-30 hours of content sound way high.

Phrenzy84
10-08-2006, 04:24 PM
is this as a passion project? I mean they have spent many years on it, but not "as" much money on it compared to other next-gen games.

I dont think GoW will be unsuccessful but there will come a project that offers nothing new, and loads of money spent on it and will crash. I wonder what effect it wil have on innovative games?

like heavyness said not every game has to be something new to work. Half-life 2 one of my fav games, was something new in graphics, but story was what was focused on, right? in terms of gameplay few things were new to me, butthey werent exploited it all served the story.

So games without much in terms of story need more gimmicks/features and visuals. Sad but its gotta have something going for it.

VonMarsch
10-09-2006, 04:39 PM
Don’t know if this has been posted.

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=20176

"Speaking at the London Games Summit, Rein said that it's taken a team of 20 - 30 people around two years to complete work on GOW - arguing that despite claims by some industry figures, it's still possible to create next-gen titles using medium sized teams and without gigantic budgets."

Wow that’s quite amazing, but then again, they do own the Unreal Engine. I guess that did cut out some of the money needed. What do you guys think?

Remedy is making Alan Wake with 30 people and they did the game engine too. So you really don't need that 200 people to make next-gen games :)

PhilOsirus
10-09-2006, 05:07 PM
Remedy is making Alan Wake with 30 people and they did the game engine too. So you really don't need that 200 people to make next-gen games :)

This is something that gets thrown around a lot, especially from companies that license engines like Epic. But the top 5 publishers/developers need very large teams to make next-gen games because they make them in very short amount of time, especially when it comes to sequels. This enables those companies to produce more games of varied genres in a shorter amount of time in order to make cash. Epic can afford a 30 man staff for three years to work one one game because they license an expensive engine and don't have to pay for one.

iocomposer
10-14-2006, 09:01 AM
Good grief!!! Are you cats talking about the same game I'm thinking is the best looking game I've ever seen??? This thread reeks of sour grapes.

To quote from someone who has played the game:

"As a person who’s been gaming for 18 years, I can honestly say that playing Gears of War is undoubtedly the highest I’ve ever felt. Forget drugs and alcohol, everything you need to get that adrenaline pumping is coming our way in November."

and...

"The blend of tactical play, jaw dropping action and physics, superb control system, stunning detail, breath-taking animations and well designed maps surpasses anything that we’ve witnessed or played…ever. Gears of War is so good that we’ve been on a come-down since we've had to leave it behind. It’s all we’ve been thinking about ever since and we’re in no doubt that it’s shaping up to be one of the greatest games of all time and one that should inspire other developers to follow suit."

Source:
http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item...em=6997&page=1

nofosu
10-14-2006, 05:25 PM
Good grief!!! Are you cats talking about the same game I'm thinking is the best looking game I've ever seen??? This thread reeks of sour grapes.



i agree wid you whole heartedly

ambient-whisper
10-14-2006, 06:15 PM
Good grief!!! Are you cats talking about the same game I'm thinking is the best looking game I've ever seen??? This thread reeks of sour grapes.

To quote from someone who has played the game:

"As a person who’s been gaming for 18 years, I can honestly say that playing Gears of War is undoubtedly the highest I’ve ever felt. Forget drugs and alcohol, everything you need to get that adrenaline pumping is coming our way in November."

and...

"The blend of tactical play, jaw dropping action and physics, superb control system, stunning detail, breath-taking animations and well designed maps surpasses anything that we’ve witnessed or played…ever. Gears of War is so good that we’ve been on a come-down since we've had to leave it behind. It’s all we’ve been thinking about ever since and we’re in no doubt that it’s shaping up to be one of the greatest games of all time and one that should inspire other developers to follow suit."

Source:
http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item...em=6997&page=1

gaming is done for entertainment purposes imo. if you were to strip gears of war of its graphics and play it, is it still going to be as fun for you? from the videos i seen, it looks like an extremely shallow game. i could be wrong and i am curious to play it, but i have my doubts.

iocomposer
10-14-2006, 06:45 PM
gaming is done for entertainment purposes imo. if you were to strip gears of war of its graphics and play it, is it still going to be as fun for you? from the videos i seen, it looks like an extremely shallow game. i could be wrong and i am curious to play it, but i have my doubts.


I guess that depends on your definition of fun, doesn't it? For me, chainsawing and curbstomping aliens seems like a lot of fun....well more fun than collecting dexterity points and trading virtual possessions. Your writing gives the impressioin that you're just looking for something to be a naysayer about. You can't strip away the graphics from a game because that's a big part of the fun. I can't understand why somebody who is a forum leader of an "art" forum would completely discount the value of highly artistic graphics?? Strip away the graphics and see if it's a good game? That's like asking if the sex was as good as it was before you had your pecker hacked off!

ambient-whisper
10-14-2006, 11:05 PM
why am i saying what im saying? probably because i have been looking forward to this game ever since it was announced. because the art style grabbed me by the balls and really attracted me to the game. then however, when the videos were released on how it played, the dialogue was entirely geared toward teenagers who think that swearing is cool, and blood and guts makes a mature/good game. the gameplay also didnt introduce anything new as you can see in those videos, except pressing Y to aim at "interest points", which takes any form of puzzle solving/difficulty right out of the game. so we are left with absolutely nothing except #)$$ and bombs.

I have been a fan of games for years, and dont assume that because i dislike what i see happening with this game, that i like trading assets online with personalized characters. infact i cant stand games that have no goal. sure, maybe for a little bit here and there, but i dont waste my time leveling up characters and chasing items if theres no goal/end to a game. my definition of fun is that a game should be fun without it having any need for normal maps, hdr, etc.
all the art is just icing on the cake. but if the cake sucks, then the icing isnt going to help it.

as for your sexual metaphor, its a bad one. a better metaphor would be like saying that in order to be great in bed, you have to be good looking. which is way off.

GreyWolf_OPS
10-15-2006, 12:12 AM
Ya, I don't knw.. My buddy and I that served four years in a weapons platoon, and are looking forward to this game. Were completely psyched. Why you ask, because it captures the to some degree the experience that felt while in the service. Not saying that we had bloody battles in which we chainsawed people. No, its the dynamics of the game. If you buddy goes down, you have to choose to save him or not. But what if you really want to save him, but are pinned down by the other side. It adds a certain tension to the game as your buddy is calling you to revive him. Gears is not a standard shooter, it in many ways is more of a tactical shooter than I have ever seen. My friend bought the PC version of GRAW in hopes of a multiplayer tactical shooter, only to be let down because the game mechanics allowed it to be played like a doom or quake in multiplayer( he throughly enjoyed the single player aspect of the game). Gears makes sure that the gameplay is tactial and play as a team otherwise your a$$ is toast.

Swearing cool? Dude, if you are in a military unit, theres nothing but swearing. Espcially in a grunt unit. <sarcasim> I recalled the DI expressing his concerns that he would damage our virgin ears with foul language... Right...</sarcasim> What I do recall him saying is that if he caught us using foul language when our families visited that he would thrash the ever living $hit out of us infront of our family. So there are times when its called for, and times when its not.

The point of the gore and blood is that, war is not a pretty thing, and they are not affraid of showing it. And it clearly conveys that with the destroyed beauty style that they have. The whole reason for pressing "Y" is to keep the flow of the game going. Not to spend 5-10 min trying to get back on track with the story. And I am glad that they added it, because not to have that in an adrenaline-filled shooter would ruin some of the experience.

As far as gameplay experience, I mean the fact that Dan Shu from EGM was one of the harshest criticisms about the game, and did an excellent story about the game in issue 209. The only dissappointment he had about the game was not playing it enough, and the guy was a skeptic from the E3 05. Either way, it really doesn't matter what I say. Just pickup the November issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly issue 209. If you are not sold on the Gears of War after reading the cover story(pg.96), well I am sure there is nothing that will convince you that its an outstanding game.

ambient-whisper
10-15-2006, 01:58 AM
Gears makes sure that the gameplay is tactial and play as a team otherwise your a$$ is toast.

it better be, because if its not then youll never care about those "friends" who are down while you are pinned down. from what i seen so far, there hasnt really been any tactical aspects thrown into there except telling your partners to wait, while you yourself go flank the enemy.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=13653&type=mov&pl=game

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=13655&type=mov&pl=game

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=13657&type=mov&pl=game

im making my judgements based on these videos. ( well and others too but mainly these as they show exactly how the story begins, and game starts, and so far its really lame ). doesnt mean i wont give it a chance, ill give it a chance on the art merit alone, but i really hope to be more impressed with the game than what is shown so far.

GreyWolf_OPS
10-15-2006, 02:43 AM
Have you seen the videos from GameInformer from the teaser event after Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie..

LA Video of Action (http://gameinformer.com/News/Media/Media.htm?CS_pid=%7B734F0C8F-1083-4587-9FBB-A3ABC1B6484A%7D)

I will say that this shows how easy it is to learn how to play considering this is the first time they played it. Granted they didn't play in a team that well, but they did fairly good job for being thrown together. It shows promise for how it will play when it plays over XboxLive. The single player will be fun, but I am more focused on Co-Op and how multiplayer will be. Seeing how Cliffy was very adamant about not making it your average quake/unreal shooter. Which is something that i have been wanting for a long time.

iocomposer
10-15-2006, 02:50 AM
I was thinking my sex metaphor was kinda funny...

Anyhow, I can certainly understand your skepticism. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

The thing is, I don't ever remember a game that has been as hyped up as Gears, not even Halo2. In my world (which is the game industry btw), it's all I ever hear about... It's sadly inevitable that anything with this amount of hype and attention is going to be fodder for those who take pride in knocking things down. Hopefully the final pudding will quell most of you naysayers. :)

For me, I'm so stoked on Gears of War that it would take about a dozen Jar-Jars to kill my enthusiasm.

Cheers! :)

CGTalk Moderation
10-15-2006, 02:50 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.