Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant. - Page 2

Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Panda
Posts: 2042
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 00:20

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by Panda »

Spore owns! I made a grass creature and named it Flower, a worm with a diamond spike coming out of it's back and a butterfly creature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVFEfLihXq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tMw-sSLVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdsy-O8gzaM
User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by Dragon45 »

Uh, spore is incredibly complex stuff, as joun onmiko said. The algorithms and technologies that allow procedural content generation, the nice UI for creating content, the automatic animation, the scale of it all - it's fucking ridiculous how much new and truly groundbreaking stuff is in there. i dont think there's any real part of the spore dev process that can be criticized. I'm actually surprised it only took fifty million and that it was even created as it was at today's rate. and yes, the game is fantastically fun. i think the bad release date was due more to pushes by marketing than anything.

argh: i think this criticism is entirely unwarranted and that you're basically showing a massive ignorance of how technology, money, and innovation actually work.
User avatar
[TS]Lollocide
Posts: 324
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 18:24

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by [TS]Lollocide »

Sure 50 million is alot, but assuming their going to do the same thing they did with fucking Sims, they'll probably end up making a truck filled with money.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by Saktoth »

Wow, i actually agree with Otherside (This doesnt happen often!).

Titanic cost $200 million dollars. Its gross revenue was $1.8 BILLION. With a B.

The LOTR trilogy cost $280 million. Its gross revenue was $2.91 billion.

Meet the Spartans cost $30 million dollars. Its gross revenue was $84 million dollars.

I think spore is worth more than Meet the Fucking Spartans.

Rant all you want about the excess of western society and the amount we spend on idle entertainment, but computer games are not exceptional. Take note that computer games have finally come of age, that one of the most anticipated games of all time has a larger budget than some stupid parody flick.

But this is not particularly spectacular. Keep it in perspective.

Oh, and the budget for halo 3, a totally unrevolutionary THIRD IN THE FRANCHISE 'another god damn FPS'? $53 million US dollars.

Whatever its merits as a game (which remain to be seen, you havent played it). At least Spore will do a few things people havent seen before. Everything from user-generated content and procedural generation and animation to the broad cross-genre nature of the game makes it at least worth applauding for its boldness. This is EA we are talking about, they could have just gotten Will Wright to pump out another Sims.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by smoth »

jcnossen wrote:They are commercializing completely new area's of cool algorithms and generated content. For once they are finally spending money on new things instead of sports game 200x, so I really have no idea what your problem with spore development is.... :?

As i understand it, Spore required investment in actual new research, which causes a lot more risk and a much larger number of developers to make sure you succeed. A game such as fallout 3 would not require any new research.
+ <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
User avatar
SwiftSpear
Classic Community Lead
Posts: 7287
Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by SwiftSpear »

Argh wrote:In short, Blizzard's people are probably laughing their asses off.
Fuck, blizzard makes more than 50 mil in a month on Wow alone, and they spend more on CGI alone for their games. Blizzard is not the best model of design economy, they have enough that they can afford to be obstensively wasteful if it slightly improves their comfort level. We're talking about a company that made 80% of a triple A title, and then threw it away when they didn't like it enough. Blizzard has no say in this discussion either.

I agree with Dragon and Sak...
manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by manored »

Also, making an epic game helps build up reputation and tends to increase the sales of future games :)
El Idiot
Posts: 147
Joined: 01 Feb 2007, 00:58

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by El Idiot »

OTA was developed for a tiny fraction of that, with the main engine being completed in just a few months.
It was still revolutionary.

Spore should be revolutionary... but 50 million is overkill.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by Pxtl »

The technology from Spore can be used to streamline the development of a hundred games if leveraged properly. While it's less repackagable then the engines-as-games marketing approach of the FPS world, this game is still an investment, beyond being simple a damned good game.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by Gota »

Maybe we should play it first than pass judgment.
User avatar
[TS]Lollocide
Posts: 324
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 18:24

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by [TS]Lollocide »

Gota wrote:Maybe we should play it first than pass judgment.
UR WRONG, JUDGING A GAME BEFORE YOU'VE PLAYED IT IS THE STAPLE OF EVERY CRITIC'S EGO.

Capslock power GO.
El Capitano
Posts: 156
Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by El Capitano »

So EA finally, finally produces something original rather than Derivitive Piece of Shit 09 (with 30 expansion packs) and people still piss and moan?! Spore is increadibly ambitious and that's in it's current cut-down form. I'm not surprised it cost a lot, it's pretty innovative in nearly every way.
User avatar
ralphie
Posts: 426
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 08:39

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by ralphie »

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, SOMEONE SHOULD INFORM THE PRESIDENT RIGHT AWAY
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

girls at my uni who spend all their time drunk or on their backs and can barely find their way around windows enough to open a word doc are all talking about spore; it'll make back that 50 million in a month. It also works on mac; all those dirty sellouts wanting to prove that their mac can do anything a pc can do, or maybe just do somthing other than slideshows, is going to buy spore. every nerd is going to buy spore, although a fully functional version is up for download on rapidshare, yesterday, because they want the online content. like the sims, it'll have over nine thousand expansion packs released at full game retail prices. this is going to make its money back no problem imo
User avatar
TheMightyOne
Posts: 492
Joined: 26 Feb 2007, 14:32

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by TheMightyOne »

i'm sure that over the half of that 50 millions was spent on advertising.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20686
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by AF »

Spore is nto just a game, the algorithms built for it and the shifts will have a lasting impact.

For one spore development provoked a lot of research that helped progress technology in many other areas, and it stands as a valuable teaching tool to biologists teaching evolution.

And Argh, JTAC may have been cheap btu ti was nto game development. You have to license out source control and all these other tools, and pay developers and train them and buy trademarks and register patents and do copyrights and develop tools and hire testers. On the floor below me are hundreds of QA testers on their PS3s testing things, and they don't come cheap.

Then there's incentives to prevent developers defecting. Game developers arent exactly bountiful.

Now considering spore is pretty much 'sim everything' the scope of what they set out to do was enormous, far more than any game that came before it. This game is creating an entire genre and a whole new franchise which many predict could last for a very very long time and be even more popular than the sims.

Its also a hefty research investment. They now have technology they can drag and drop into new games and sidestep the whole research and experimentation process.

Spore is a goldmine, EA is extremely lucky to have it.
User avatar
SinbadEV
Posts: 6475
Joined: 02 May 2005, 03:56

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by SinbadEV »

Unfortunately those perpetually drunk girls will need to go out and buy real computers in order to play the game...
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by smoth »

drunk girls are only hot and shagable until the alcohol starts putting on the pounds. I am glad I didn't date/fuck one of those alcy bitches
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by Gota »

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:girls at my uni who spend all their time drunk or on their backs and can barely find their way around windows enough to open a word doc are all talking about spore; it'll make back that 50 million in a month. It also works on mac; all those dirty sellouts wanting to prove that their mac can do anything a pc can do, or maybe just do somthing other than slideshows, is going to buy spore. every nerd is going to buy spore, although a fully functional version is up for download on rapidshare, yesterday, because they want the online content. like the sims, it'll have over nine thousand expansion packs released at full game retail prices. this is going to make its money back no problem imo
Not Funny,I just looked its not on rapidshare yet.
manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Re: Spore's real costs, implications therof. A rant.

Post by manored »

I tough saying where you can get paid games for free was forbidden? :)

But yeah, its on the internet already, what is impressive considering the game wasnt even released yet :)
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”