Peeeling wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 20:12:
I did enjoy this bit though:
"BF3 took about 6 years to make (from BF2 to release)"
So a BF1 MMO would take... how long, you think? And how long if, after five years, you didn't even have the BF1 part?
I really don't understand how your mind is working here. Games far less ambitious than SC routinely cost more and take longer, even when development goes to plan, even when planned properly, scoped properly in advance, and executed by a team seasoned by development of earlier, similar games. Here we have constant feature-creep, constant do-overs, a ridiculous 'modular' non-plan for development (just the dumbest, dumbest idea, ramping up to umpteen studios when he did without any core tech locked down) - somehow this is fine?
I didn't see your edit at the time you posted. I was talking about and referring to the fact that a lot of people around here seem to forget how long AAA games take to make. And how SC is about on track with 4 years of development, 5 years if you count the 1 year of prototyping and tying to sell/gain money to start the project, which is not DEV time but whatever, the true DEV time started after the KS funding, but again whatever. I also think i mentioned that it was a new team that had to build Tech from the ground up, like you mentioned about not being a seasoned team, even though they do have almost the entire Crytek engine team now.
I'll also refer back to my original post about redos and how that is just apart of game DEV, any good team that wants to produce a quality product will have redos in their DEV schedule, it happens and the new DOOM is a great example of redos. The trick is to not let it happen like what DNF did with changing to new engines 2-3 times, or what you
say SC is doing. Although they said everything in SQ42 is featured locked soooo ..
The whole point was you mentioned that if say WoW redid their graphics to SC standards (which btw they have redone their graphics engine several times now to add newer technology) that they would go bust, which in Blizzard money would be untrue. I was making the point that it cost less to make WoW than you stated and SC has double the funds than what WoW had during it's development and about the same DEV time. The other games on the list were to show DEV time frames and how not all AAA games cost or take the same amount of time to DEV and SC was well within the time frame of any other AAA game with its redos. Ans again if it starts to creep into the 6 - 7 - 8 years without releasing a good chunk of thier promises and funding dries uo, then yes they would be in trouble, but right now that do not seem to be the case.
People seem to have a hard on thinking SC should have been done in 2 years (because CR promised us it would be out in 2014!) well as been said before, that game and what is currently being worked on are clearly different games ("but that's not what I
paid for!" -haters). One was going to be a space sim in the style of WingCommander ("which is all I wanted" -haters) and the other is a AAA title with new Tech, feature creep that people paid for
in the stretch goals
, and higher anal CR standards.
That's all I was referring too.This comment was edited on Oct 13, 2016, 09:06.