Killzone Dev Says PS4 "A Lot More Demanding"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Killzone Dev Says PS4 "A Lot More Demanding"

Killzone Shadow Fall Screen

Eric Botljes, lead designer for Killzone: Shadow Fall, says that the PS4 is easier to develop for but will require quadruple the production effort.

Much ado has been made about how the PlayStation 4, unlike the Cell-based PS3, will be much easier for developers to make games for. "The barrier to entry that existed on the PS3 technologically is gone," said architect Mark Cerny. That being the case, the coming of the PS4 and next-generation consoles doesn't necessarily mean things are going to get breezier for game developers. In fact, things may just get hard in different ways,

"The architecture is really cool because it's easier to develop for, you get more memory, you get more hard drive space, you get more processing power so the architecture is easier," said Eric Boltjes, lead designer for Killzone: Shadow Fall. That being the, case the increased power of the PS4 also means that the hardware is "a lot more demanding." According to Boltjes, "the production effort needed just to make a next-gen title now is not doubled; It's quadrupled." In turn, developing a game like Killzone: Shadow Fall "takes a lot more people" and "from a professional standpoint it makes things a lot harder."

Considering how expensive it already was to make triple-A titles like Shadow Fall, we can only imagine that the increased technical requirements of the PS4 (and Xbox One) will do little to help with that. That being the case, with the PS4 looking to rely more heavily on smaller indie productions this generation, the costs of triple-A games might have less of a reach than in the previous years where more than a few developers died trying to produce games they couldn't afford.

Source: VG247

Permalink

Well, we've had the trend of exploding costs already in the past few years and when I hear the cost is going to be around 4 times that of today, then I think of quadratic growth. How the hell is this supposed to be sustainable? At this rate publishers will burn out too quickly to be able to adjust their spending habits. All the shiny pixels, improved sound and motion capturing cost a lot of money and throwing more people at a problem yields diminishing returns, which is probably also one of the reasons the costs are exploding.

Somewhen they will have to call it a day and just remain on a certain level.

No it isn't you dolt!

You don't HAVE to use every bit of processing power and memory available. You don't HAVE to cram in bazillions of polygons. You don't HAVE to create the biggest selling game of all time. You don't HAVE to appeal to everyone and their dog.

Just create a cool game. It's okay if it's not using every processor cycle as long as the gameplay's good. It doesn't have to use every byte of memory as long as the maps and world are fun and interesting. It doesn't have to do as many FLOPS as the GPU is capable of as long as it looks cool.

There's no increased technical requirements. The PS4 won't cease operation of your game if it's not rendering thousands of HD models every single frame. Nothing bad happens if you're not spending at least 20% of all your processing power simulating the exact flight path of every single bullet.

Seriously, just stop. Don't go spending more millions you damn well know you're not going to earn back and then decide it's a failure because you couldn't make as much profit as CoD whilst blaming everyone but yourself. Just stop.

I've been calling this for a long time now.

Exponential cost increase * diminishing returns = developer death.

I'm getting concerned. ;____; At least there will be an emphasis on indie games.

Well, it's a generic sci-fi FPS. It doesn't have much going for it other than visuals. So maybe it's time to make some original games that will use that power and ease of access for more than just pretty graphics.

With so many commercial failures in this gen, and many publishers facing financial troubles, it seems to me the industry would be better served if they focused on improving the efficiency of development instead of ramping up production. We might be close to the point that we simply don't have the time and manpower to take full advantage of technology available to us.

It's a Death Star paradox; sure, a space station that can destroy an entire planet is impressive, but what good is it when you have to drain the resources of an entire solar system to build and maintain it, while sheltering the millions of people required to operate it?

You're throwing money on the pyre to achieve goals that aren't necessary or even beneficial to the end product.

I'm really hoping that publishers can strike a balance and keep this industry from crashing and burning.

Misleading headline is misleading.

A better one would read, "Devs say any new AAA game created for ANY platform (XBONE,PS4,PC) more demanding, this one happens to be making game for PS4." There's almost nothing about this that is special to PlayStation. The lack of cell architecture is one story; The bloated development studios for AAA titles is another.

Scribblesense:
With so many commercial failures in this gen, and many publishers facing financial troubles, it seems to me the industry would be better served if they focused on improving the efficiency of development instead of ramping up production. We might be close to the point that we simply don't have the time and manpower to take full advantage of technology available to us.

It's a Death Star paradox; sure, a space station that can destroy an entire planet is impressive, but what good is it when you have to drain the resources of an entire solar system to build and maintain it, while sheltering the millions of people required to operate it?

You're throwing money on the pyre to achieve goals that aren't necessary or even beneficial to the end product.

I'm really hoping that publishers can strike a balance and keep this industry from crashing and burning.

The industry won't crash and burn. Stupid AAA publishers and developers will. The industry will be fine. New companies will rise to replace the old ones. Hopefully they will understand the reasons behind the demise of their predecessors.

So wait, what about crysis when it was developed for the PC waaay back? That must have been a nightmare. I read a comment on this article somewhere and I can't find it. It said "This guy probably never developed for the PC" or something of the sort.

PC has had this kind of power for years. :P Think publishers should start cutting advertising and other corporate bullshit.

Or, make the same games you were making before, but at 1080p with 60fps and AA. About one day of extra effort for a single employee, but everything looks considerably better.

P.S. Thanks

You know, I remember people telling me that costs this gen will go down or at least stay flat because the hardware is easier to develop for and there will be engines made to help make things easier.

I really wish there were right :(

Adam Jensen:
Well, it's a generic sci-fi FPS. It doesn't have much going for it other than visuals. So maybe it's time to make some original games that will use that power and ease of access for more than just pretty graphics.

So no one played KZ2 or 3 for the gameplay? Just the visuals? Huh, the more you know...

Hah, welcome to developing for 64bit x86. You're only 10 years late.

This is great news. I await the days to come where we will hear the news of the bankrupt demise of the more greedy and self absorbed fuckwit development houses so I can go out and piss on their graves.

Get ready to hear complaints from studios such as "One billion dollars in the first week? THAT'S ALL WE MADE!? We are so fucked!!" for the next few years.

Korten12:

Adam Jensen:
Well, it's a generic sci-fi FPS. It doesn't have much going for it other than visuals. So maybe it's time to make some original games that will use that power and ease of access for more than just pretty graphics.

So no one played KZ2 or 3 for the gameplay? Just the visuals? Huh, the more you know...

You can play a game for any number of reasons, doesn't mean it'll be a good time. And from what I've played of the Killzone games, playing it for the gameplay isn't really a good time.
It did look kinda pretty at times though.

Hagi:
No it isn't you dolt!

You don't HAVE to use every bit of processing power and memory available. You don't HAVE to cram in bazillions of polygons. You don't HAVE to create the biggest selling game of all time. You don't HAVE to appeal to everyone and their dog.

Just create a cool game. It's okay if it's not using every processor cycle as long as the gameplay's good. It doesn't have to use every byte of memory as long as the maps and world are fun and interesting. It doesn't have to do as many FLOPS as the GPU is capable of as long as it looks cool.

There's no increased technical requirements. The PS4 won't cease operation of your game if it's not rendering thousands of HD models every single frame. Nothing bad happens if you're not spending at least 20% of all your processing power simulating the exact flight path of every single bullet.

Seriously, just stop. Don't go spending more millions you damn well know you're not going to earn back and then decide it's a failure because you couldn't make as much profit as CoD whilst blaming everyone but yourself. Just stop.

To be fair Killzone is a Sony game, it's made to show the system off and sell units. So it'd go the extra mile to look amazing in trailers etc to show what the system can do.

RicoADF:

Hagi:
No it isn't you dolt!

You don't HAVE to use every bit of processing power and memory available. You don't HAVE to cram in bazillions of polygons. You don't HAVE to create the biggest selling game of all time. You don't HAVE to appeal to everyone and their dog.

Just create a cool game. It's okay if it's not using every processor cycle as long as the gameplay's good. It doesn't have to use every byte of memory as long as the maps and world are fun and interesting. It doesn't have to do as many FLOPS as the GPU is capable of as long as it looks cool.

There's no increased technical requirements. The PS4 won't cease operation of your game if it's not rendering thousands of HD models every single frame. Nothing bad happens if you're not spending at least 20% of all your processing power simulating the exact flight path of every single bullet.

Seriously, just stop. Don't go spending more millions you damn well know you're not going to earn back and then decide it's a failure because you couldn't make as much profit as CoD whilst blaming everyone but yourself. Just stop.

To be fair Killzone is a Sony game, it's made to show the system off and sell units. So it'd go the extra mile to look amazing in trailers etc to show what the system can do.

Good point actually. Although to be honest those kinds of games usually suck. I remember Killzone 2 showing off the PS3's "Strengths" and just having insanely infuriating valve-turning events. So I bought a 360.

Oh well. It's not like the PS4 is going to be lacking in cool-looking games. Shadow Fall might be a flop financially because of this and be hurt critically, but if Sony actually does get to show off a bit with it they might still consider the whole deal a positive in the long run.

RicoADF:
To be fair Killzone is a Sony game, it's made to show the system off and sell units. So it'd go the extra mile to look amazing in trailers etc to show what the system can do.

If the devs want to do that then that's fine.

But it's a choice they made. It's not something next-gen forced on to them, it's not a demand.

The PS4 does not quadruple the production effort. Developers themselves may choose to quadruple the production effort if they so wish. But it's a choice they make themselves, and if quadrupling their production efforts does not lead to an equal increase in sales then they also have none to blame but themselves.

Well the developer has always worked on the PS3, so they really haven't had to optimize a PC build I figure. So whilst the demand is there (from the tech) I think this might be a problem specifically for console exclusive developers.

But hey if it flops it's a firm kick to the nuts that it was a bad idea to quadruple your costs. GTAV is an anomaly, not the standard. Fuckin' Hell Rockstar, deluding the whole industry with your sub par game.

y'know, when I hear crap like this it makes me believe that developers are really just wasting money on useless crap in order to show off. It really reeks of insecurity

hazabaza1:

Korten12:

Adam Jensen:
Well, it's a generic sci-fi FPS. It doesn't have much going for it other than visuals. So maybe it's time to make some original games that will use that power and ease of access for more than just pretty graphics.

So no one played KZ2 or 3 for the gameplay? Just the visuals? Huh, the more you know...

You can play a game for any number of reasons, doesn't mean it'll be a good time. And from what I've played of the Killzone games, playing it for the gameplay isn't really a good time.
It did look kinda pretty at times though.

Actually the gameplay is the main reason why I play Killzone. It's one of the few Sci-Fi shooters that has weight to the gunplay and I like that.

StewShearer:
"the production effort needed just to make a next-gen title now is not doubled; It's quadrupled."

Take note everyone: this is the day that we had confirmation that AAA development will be all but dead by the end of this console generation.

On the plus side, indie development is going to be bigger than ever.

Hagi:
No it isn't you dolt!

You don't HAVE to use every bit of processing power and memory available. You don't HAVE to cram in bazillions of polygons. You don't HAVE to create the biggest selling game of all time. You don't HAVE to appeal to everyone and their dog.

Just create a cool game. It's okay if it's not using every processor cycle as long as the gameplay's good. It doesn't have to use every byte of memory as long as the maps and world are fun and interesting. It doesn't have to do as many FLOPS as the GPU is capable of as long as it looks cool.

There's no increased technical requirements. The PS4 won't cease operation of your game if it's not rendering thousands of HD models every single frame. Nothing bad happens if you're not spending at least 20% of all your processing power simulating the exact flight path of every single bullet.

Seriously, just stop. Don't go spending more millions you damn well know you're not going to earn back and then decide it's a failure because you couldn't make as much profit as CoD whilst blaming everyone but yourself. Just stop.

This is a person who knows.

It's not like Halo got more fun when they gave it a coat of HD paint. It was already fun. It's not like Saints Row 2 wasn't amazing or GTA5 or Ratchet and Clank or (pick your favorite current gen title).

What I hear is: We are now preparing ourselves for a PC port. I can't wait.

ZZoMBiE13:

Hagi:
No it isn't you dolt!

You don't HAVE to use every bit of processing power and memory available. You don't HAVE to cram in bazillions of polygons. You don't HAVE to create the biggest selling game of all time. You don't HAVE to appeal to everyone and their dog.

Just create a cool game. It's okay if it's not using every processor cycle as long as the gameplay's good. It doesn't have to use every byte of memory as long as the maps and world are fun and interesting. It doesn't have to do as many FLOPS as the GPU is capable of as long as it looks cool.

There's no increased technical requirements. The PS4 won't cease operation of your game if it's not rendering thousands of HD models every single frame. Nothing bad happens if you're not spending at least 20% of all your processing power simulating the exact flight path of every single bullet.

Seriously, just stop. Don't go spending more millions you damn well know you're not going to earn back and then decide it's a failure because you couldn't make as much profit as CoD whilst blaming everyone but yourself. Just stop.

This is a person who knows.

It's not like Halo got more fun when they gave it a coat of HD paint. It was already fun. It's not like Saints Row 2 wasn't amazing or GTA5 or Ratchet and Clank or (pick your favorite current gen title).

Hell, when they gave a coat of HD to Halo, it got WORSE due to severe frame drops on split screen (Some people still play split screen, hell, its the only way I can enjoy it).

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

ZZoMBiE13:

Hagi:
No it isn't you dolt!

You don't HAVE to use every bit of processing power and memory available. You don't HAVE to cram in bazillions of polygons. You don't HAVE to create the biggest selling game of all time. You don't HAVE to appeal to everyone and their dog.

Just create a cool game. It's okay if it's not using every processor cycle as long as the gameplay's good. It doesn't have to use every byte of memory as long as the maps and world are fun and interesting. It doesn't have to do as many FLOPS as the GPU is capable of as long as it looks cool.

There's no increased technical requirements. The PS4 won't cease operation of your game if it's not rendering thousands of HD models every single frame. Nothing bad happens if you're not spending at least 20% of all your processing power simulating the exact flight path of every single bullet.

Seriously, just stop. Don't go spending more millions you damn well know you're not going to earn back and then decide it's a failure because you couldn't make as much profit as CoD whilst blaming everyone but yourself. Just stop.

This is a person who knows.

It's not like Halo got more fun when they gave it a coat of HD paint. It was already fun. It's not like Saints Row 2 wasn't amazing or GTA5 or Ratchet and Clank or (pick your favorite current gen title).

Hell, when they gave a coat of HD to Halo, it got WORSE due to severe frame drops on split screen (Some people still play split screen, hell, its the only way I can enjoy it).

Part of me still really hopes they give Halo 2 an HD overhaul. That's the one that really could benefit from it. They were pushing the old Xbox so hard that it had those weird pop-ins and since the Arbiter didn't have a lamp like the Chief, all those long dark Flood levels were so hard to navigate.

Of course I know a lot of people want Halo 2 multiplayer to return too, but I kinda feel like I played enough of that back when it was new. Still, it'd be nice to play the entire Halo trilogy with a similar graphical style.

Part of me still really hopes they give Halo 2 an HD overhaul. That's the one that really could benefit from it. They were pushing the old Xbox so hard that it had those weird pop-ins and since the Arbiter didn't have a lamp like the Chief, all those long dark Flood levels were so hard to navigate.

Of course I know a lot of people want Halo 2 multiplayer to return too, but I kinda feel like I played enough of that back when it was new. Still, it'd be nice to play the entire Halo trilogy with a similar graphical style.

Its why I loved Halo 2 on PC, had slightly better graphics and none of the annoying pop-in. Of course it ran on GFWL...

I don't really understand the 4x more effort. Why can't they just run normally created textures(no longer downscaled for 256 vram) crank up the framerate, run in native 1080 throw in some effects and be done w/ it.

Take the game move the sliders to "ultra" boom your running a next gen game. I mean yeah theres a lot more you can do w/ the HW bigger levels more ai on screen etc. but idk about 4x the effots worth.

Irridium:
You know, I remember people telling me that costs this gen will go down or at least stay flat because the hardware is easier to develop for and there will be engines made to help make things easier.

I really wish there were right :(

That's assuming competent developers with reasonable management.

Which we all know is pretty fucking unlikely.

I'm not surprised actually, but it's certainly proof that we're putting too much money into making the game look nice as opposed to improving things of the previous games.

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

It's not like Halo got more fun when they gave it a coat of HD paint. It was already fun. It's not like Saints Row 2 wasn't amazing or GTA5 or Ratchet and Clank or (pick your favorite current gen title).

Hell, when they gave a coat of HD to Halo, it got WORSE due to severe frame drops on split screen (Some people still play split screen, hell, its the only way I can enjoy it).

This so much. Once Reach and 4 happened I started experiencing lag like I'd never done before in the series. Call me old fashioned but Halo 3's graphics looked nice enough to support them, and didn't give characters these horrendous faces.

Hagi:

RicoADF:
To be fair Killzone is a Sony game, it's made to show the system off and sell units. So it'd go the extra mile to look amazing in trailers etc to show what the system can do.

If the devs want to do that then that's fine.

But it's a choice they made. It's not something next-gen forced on to them, it's not a demand.

The PS4 does not quadruple the production effort. Developers themselves may choose to quadruple the production effort if they so wish. But it's a choice they make themselves, and if quadrupling their production efforts does not lead to an equal increase in sales then they also have none to blame but themselves.

I agree it's dumb to waste so much money especially when its often not even noticeable. They need to learn to be more realistic with their budgets and stop wasting it. That said I was theorising as to why Killzone would have gone so overboard, it's a Sony game and they use their games (As Microsoft does theirs on the Xbox) to show the system off for what it can do.

Evonisia:
I'm not surprised actually, but it's certainly proof that we're putting too much money into making the game look nice as opposed to improving things of the previous games.

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

It's not like Halo got more fun when they gave it a coat of HD paint. It was already fun. It's not like Saints Row 2 wasn't amazing or GTA5 or Ratchet and Clank or (pick your favorite current gen title).

Hell, when they gave a coat of HD to Halo, it got WORSE due to severe frame drops on split screen (Some people still play split screen, hell, its the only way I can enjoy it).

This so much. Once Reach and 4 happened I started experiencing lag like I'd never done before in the series. Call me old fashioned but Halo 3's graphics looked nice enough to support them, and didn't give characters these horrendous faces.

Really? I've played three player split screen in Halo Reach and only encounter lag when I spawn tons of physics objects in forge. Halo 4 of course I go down to 15fps in two player split screen constantly in multiplayer.

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

Really? I've played three player split screen in Halo Reach and only encounter lag when I spawn tons of physics objects in forge. Halo 4 of course I go down to 15fps in two player split screen constantly in multiplayer.

I encounter it in Reach more often than 3 but not as much as 4, usually if I play on Forge World as a whole. Though in all fairness to Reach, 3 was quite good in terms of framerate.

Korten12:

hazabaza1:

Korten12:

So no one played KZ2 or 3 for the gameplay? Just the visuals? Huh, the more you know...

You can play a game for any number of reasons, doesn't mean it'll be a good time. And from what I've played of the Killzone games, playing it for the gameplay isn't really a good time.
It did look kinda pretty at times though.

Actually the gameplay is the main reason why I play Killzone. It's one of the few Sci-Fi shooters that has weight to the gunplay and I like that.

I'll second that. Killzone feels totally different from the other shooters out there, and I love it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here