Aufhebung RPG
History is tragedy becoming comedy
I don't mean the next 3d zelda, I mean the next 3d mario is open world rumor source is zippoThe next 3D Zelda being open world is the safest bet ever, I don't care if Zippo said it.
I don't mean the next 3d zelda, I mean the next 3d mario is open world rumor source is zippoThe next 3D Zelda being open world is the safest bet ever, I don't care if Zippo said it.
I would say its a fairly safe bet to, but could go both ways.I don't mean the next 3d zelda, I mean the next 3d mario is open world rumor source is zippo
It means absolutely everything, games used to be released between years, now they're released between seven years each. That's a huge workforce (including motion capture and support studios) working on a single thing for a very long time... What other explanation do you need?Marketing and distribution aside, everything around costs boils down to people and hours worked. This literally says nothing. The assets themselves are only a cost because of the hours required to create them.
So again, why are games taking so long, and do these choices impact Nintendo even when considering titles like Tears? As my previous post mentioned, I don’t really think it’s a given.
I don't think that's the case, open worlds are a trap as well as a money-gobbling behemoth, and if EPD had maintained the barest minimum of sanity then it would have been impossible for two open world projects to exist at the same time.I would say its a fairly safe bet to, but could go both ways.
Depends on the open world, I don't think a Mario one would have to be. They could take the Bowsers Fury template to the next level.I don't think that's the case, open worlds are a trap as well as a money-gobbling behemoth, and if EPD had maintained the barest minimum of sanity then it would have been impossible for two open world projects to exist at the same time.
It means absolutely everything, games used to be released between years, now they're released between seven years each. That's a huge workforce (including motion capture and support studios) working on a single thing for a very long time... What other explanation do you need?
Oh, we're back to this point of the loop$450 is just insane. That's au$700. No thanks.
$400 is around au$620. Ugh.
$350... au$550. Doable.
$300: au$460. Possibly $480. Great!
It's not just fidelity is the thing. It isn't just mocap and expensive assets, these games got huge teams and Zelda is no exception, you're asking for the reason of development costs and that is why. Put a huge team to work at something for several years straight (regardless of how much is new or reused) and this will be the result, all that effort doesn't generally go unpaid. Nintendo teams (especially Zelda's) aren't going to get any smaller, they aren't immune to the leading cause even if they actively avoid iteration, it's as simple as that.I already explained myself re: mocap and cutscenes with respect to Zelda. Unless we’re out here saying Xenoblade 2 was a 100 million dollar project, that’s not why Zelda costs what it does. Zelda is nowhere near the level of visual detail that most of the industry is chasing today, yet it still took years to release. Hell, Tears is mostly reusing existing assets from the previous game.
If the costs are really all mocap, UHD assets, etc. then my take is that Nintendo can and will continue to remove themselves from those requirements. The success of the next Zelda will not be determined by increasing budgets in those spaces.
Edit: I’m mostly just repeating myself.
It isn't just those things, but they contribute hugely. A game with less focus on those things is cheaper to make than those who do.It's not just fidelity is the thing. It isn't just mocap and expensive assets, these games got huge teams and Zelda is no exception, you're asking for the reason of development costs and that is why. Put a huge team to work at something for several years straight (regardless of how much is new or reused) and this will be the result, all that effort doesn't generally go unpaid. Nintendo teams (especially Zelda's) aren't going to get any smaller, they aren't immune to the leading cause even if they actively avoid iteration, it's as simple as that.
Have you seen how many people made that game with "less focus" on said things and for how long, I wonder? Compare the headcounts to AAA (plus support studios) and the rest is self explanatory.It isn't just those things, but they contribute hugely. A game with less focus on those things is cheaper to make than those who do.
hard to find budget for Nintendo games, which is the best examples I can think of.Have you seen how many people made that game with "less focus" on said things and for how long, I wonder? Compare the headcounts to AAA (plus support studios) and the rest is self explanatory.
You could argue there might have been more spec leaks without the Nvidia leak. Cause there's less incentive to just leak what we already know.It’s insane to think, how in spring 2024, just how little information there would be about Switch 2 if not for the nvidia leak.
It's not just fidelity is the thing. It isn't just mocap and expensive assets, these games got huge teams and Zelda is no exception, you're asking for the reason of development costs and that is why. Put a huge team to work at something for several years straight (regardless of how much is new or reused) and this will be the result, all that effort doesn't generally go unpaid. Nintendo teams (especially Zelda's) aren't going to get any smaller, they aren't immune to the leading cause even if they actively avoid iteration, it's as simple as that.
This is not tinfoil hat. I very much doubt it took a huge team working full time to get all that stuff working.Huge teams don’t just get thrown at a project without doing work on the project. You cannot just say the costs are rising because they have a huge team - they have a huge team because of something they are trying to accomplish that demands those resources.
If they aren’t doing motion capture, and they aren’t making new tons of new high fidelity assets, then the money spent is going elsewhere. I’m proposing it was development and testing of new systems (eg. Ultrahand) and that is once again removed from “broader industry ballooning costs.”
And frankly, just because a game took 6-7 years to make does not necessarily mean that all those resources were put on that project full time. Tinfoil hat time but there exists a possibility that while it took a very long time to polish this game off, it wasn’t all-hands for quite some time. Not every problem (optimization) can be solved by throwing more resources at it.
Nintendo usualy protype the game main mechanics, before transistioning to full develop, they dont immediately have a full development when they development it franchises, 1/2 months/years of pre-production and then 4/6 years of full development, this is how Nintendo handle the development of it games/franchises for a long time, and they will apply that to all Switch sucessor and future Nintendo consoles, even if they the possibility of making games with the twice of assets Nintendo use now for Switch.It's not just fidelity is the thing. It isn't just mocap and expensive assets, these games got huge teams and Zelda is no exception, you're asking for the reason of development costs and that is why. Put a huge team to work at something for several years straight (regardless of how much is new or reused) and this will be the result, all that effort doesn't generally go unpaid. Nintendo teams (especially Zelda's) aren't going to get any smaller, they aren't immune to the leading cause even if they actively avoid iteration, it's as simple as that.
This is not tinfoil hat. I very much doubt it took a huge team working full time to get all that stuff working.
This is meaning headcount, how many people made the game. BOTW has 914 people credited and TOTK had 1148, which is quite an increase by itself.hard to find budget for Nintendo games, which is the best examples I can think of.
They still have to get paid, regardless of what are they're doing or in what stage they are currently. They did do motion capture for BOTW and TOTK, you can see the roles in the credits, but all the staff was still left staggered with a game that took 6 years to produce. Time is money, all this time they kept paying the employees is counted into the project and makes up the majority of a game's budget, it doesn't matter how productive or unproductive the team actually was... Why would that matter? The employees were still getting paid to make said game, if that was the case all the money "spent" would translate into the game which is never literally the case. It doesn't work that way, why do you think projects even get canned at early stages?Huge teams don’t just get thrown at a project without doing work on the project. You cannot just say the costs are rising because they have a huge team - they have a huge team because of something they are trying to accomplish that demands those resources.
If they aren’t doing motion capture, and they aren’t making new tons of new high fidelity assets, then the money spent is going elsewhere. I’m proposing it was development and testing of new systems (eg. Ultrahand) and that is once again removed from “broader industry ballooning costs.”
And frankly, just because a game took 6-7 years to make does not necessarily mean that all those resources were put on that project full time. Tinfoil hat time but there exists a possibility that while it took a very long time to polish this game off, it wasn’t all-hands for quite some time. Not every problem (optimization) can be solved by throwing more resources at it.
Not if you compare the respective launch prices of the consoles, as you know.How many times do we need to go over this? The original Switch wasn’t just close to the PS4 in price, it was actually more expensive.
If price is an issue for Switch 2, it won’t be because of any comparisons with the PS5.
i believe that Nintendo has begun the pre-production of the next Legend of Zelda this year, and around 2025 the game will enter full production for a 2028/2029 release(unless a major event happen and negatively impact the game development)The actual development cycle for Tears was five years, and Hidemaro Fujibayashi has revealed in interviews that the project was set up in January 2018 after doing botw's dlc, so you can project that the development cycle for the next installment will extend to over six years.
You misunderstand. Im not saying they could have done it faster. Im saying certain tasks, a small team can do more efficiently than a big team. Like tuning the ultra hand mechanic/ physics engine.It doesn’t feel tinfoil hat, but it does breed unhealthy expectation that the team might have a new Zelda game much sooner. It’s something I don’t want to humour too much because damn does it sound good.
Quick! Someone bring up joycons again!Oh, we're back to this point of the loop
Nobody says all those people were working during the entire development cycle.This is meaning headcount, how many people made the game. BOTW has 914 people credited and TOTK had 1148, which is quite an increase by itself.
Only around 450 people working on it full time are enough to get to the budget people think it had, it's only to state the extent of the efforts put.Nobody says all those people were working during the entire development cycle.
2028 is not likely to be released, 2029 is a conservative estimate, based on several interviews I can tell that as of September they are still thinking about the new gameplay itself, and the approximate time of the project would have been around November last year, as Eiji Aonuma revealed in a December interview that there will not be a BOTW-TOTK sequel but a brand new Zelda, thenA six+ year cycle would lead to a possible release only in late 2029 at the earliest, and I think that's a conservative estimatei believe that Nintendo has begun the pre-production of the next Legend of Zelda this year, and around 2025 the game will enter full production for a 2028/2029 release(unless a major event happen and negatively impact the game development)
You misunderstand. Im not saying they could have done it faster. Im saying certain tasks, a small team can do more efficiently than a big team. Like tuning the ultra hand mechanic/ physics engine.
Like it would take a small team say 4 years, but you can't just throw more people at it to make it go faster.
Nintendo employees are not tied to a team, they constantly get shuffled around between projects as needed.I get you. I wasn’t clear enough in my post - if I assume that most of the latter development time was resourced by only a small portion of the staff focused on optimizing, that means the remainder of them would have absolutely been allocated to another new or different project.
From there I let myself believe that a new Zelda isn’t coming 6 years from the release of Tears, but rather sometime much sooner. It’s too hopeful, and flawed thinking - they could just as easily hit the same complex, long testing cycle style of development challenges again on the new title. In fact we should expect it. That’s just the type of game this team makes now: complex, dynamic, multiplicative gameplay.
Nintendo employees are not tied to a team, they constantly get shuffled around between projects as needed.
Or go back and read some old Iwata Ask interviews.Fair. I kind of assumed there was a “Zelda” team. I’m sure there’s a first party thread around here that discusses all this :]
It's both. As best as outsiders can glean, Nintendo has a number of groups - programmers, artists, sound engineers and composers - that are on paper underneath a lead. These are separate from the EPD "studios" who staff producers, directors, game designers. Those EPD teams are permanently staffed, but they "staff up" in various departments from the programming/artist/sound groups, for the length of the project.Fair. I kind of assumed there was a “Zelda” team. I’m sure there’s a first party thread around here that discusses all this :]
It's both. As best as outsiders can glean, Nintendo has a number of groups - programmers, artists, sound engineers and composers - that are on paper underneath a lead. These are separate from the EPD "studios" who staff producers, directors, game designers. Those EPD teams are permanently staffed, but they "staff up" in various departments from the programming/artist/sound groups, for the length of the project.
Credits suggest that developers do tend to stick to the same EPD groups anyway, with the sound staff floating around the most
Or go back and read some old Iwata Ask interviews.
[…]
When The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks was over, much of the staff went to develop Sword
Aonuma
We had to begin working on Skyward Sword immediately.
Shikata
The only ones left were Mouri-san, another programmer and I. The Nintendo 3DS wasn't out yet, but our goals was to make a Zelda game for the handheld that would follow the Nintendo DS, so for about the first year, we thought a lot about what to do.
Iwata
Just the three of you for a whole year? Wasn't that hard?
Shikata
Yeah. We anguished over it every day, wondering what we should do.
[…]
Consumers won't make the thought excercise of:Not if you compare the respective launch prices of the consoles, as you know.
Oh yes. We'll move onto the next loop very soonOh, we're back to this point of the loop
There is a Zelda team, but it consist of a handfull of people like Aonuma, Fujibayashi and a few more. They are the ones coming up with the core concepts and game mechanics of every Zelda game. Then other Nintendo developers join the team when real production starts.Fair. I kind of assumed there was a “Zelda” team. I’m sure there’s a first party thread around here that discusses all this :]
The average consumer isn't going to do this kind of exercise, I agree. On the other hand, when you launch any product, its initial price indicates its market positioning. Price is obviously not Nintendo's only differentiating factor, nor even the main one (that's the games available), but it's still one, and a fairly important one nonetheless.Consumers won't make the thought excercise of:
They'll just see that, in that point of time, the Switch was more expensive than the PS4.
- The Switch costs just as much as the PS4 did when it launched.
This is even assuming that the general consumer does that console comparison exercise. With how Nintendo unique is in the sense that you get Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games, I don't think that the majority of the general consumer does a comparison exercise.
That's my two cents on the price comparison.
It isn't necessarily the graphics it is the budget. Which can, sometimes, be the same thing. It can be production, the music, an unnecessary celebrity guess etc.I don't get where this worry of Nintendo falling into the Sony/Xbox graphics race trap is coming from. We've gleaned from interview that their philosophy of taking advantage of better tech is to develop new ways to play. There is nothing indicative of them developing next gen hardware into a presentation tool of graphics, rather, they use it as a means to an end, and that end is innovative ways to present their IPs.
Yeap, is a instruction level deep learning, without NPU core for calculating (using the GPU for the task).If Im not wrong, that tops number of the PS5 Pro is if the entire gpu is dedicated to doing int 4 operations, in other words not remotely realistic in a real world scenario.
Similar to this:
"DirectML leverages unprecedented hardware performance in a console, with Xbox Series X benefiting from over 24 TFLOPS of 16-bit float performance and over 97 TOPS (trillion operations per second) of 4-bit integer performance on Xbox Series X. "
Defining the Next Generation: An Xbox Series X|S Technology Glossary - Xbox Wire
[Editor’s Note: Updated on 10/21 at 11AM to ensure it is now reflective of the capabilities across both of our next-gen Xbox consoles following the unveil of Xbox Series S.] As we enter a new generation of console gaming with Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S, we’ve made a number of technology...news.xbox.com
New Zelda?The next 3D Zelda being open world is the safest bet ever, I don't care if Zippo said it.
Is not speculation after Bowser's fury? Me and my friends said that after the "game" release.I don't mean the next 3d zelda, I mean the next 3d mario is open world rumor source is zippo
It's a candidate for a new Cross gen title...2028 is not likely to be released, 2029 is a conservative estimate, based on several interviews I can tell that as of September they are still thinking about the new gameplay itself, and the approximate time of the project would have been around November last year, as Eiji Aonuma revealed in a December interview that there will not be a BOTW-TOTK sequel but a brand new Zelda, thenA six+ year cycle would lead to a possible release only in late 2029 at the earliest, and I think that's a conservative estimate
problem is Mario is less consistent than Zelda. I don't think Bowser's Fury will be a one off, but Nintendo likes to change things up every so often with Mario. who'd a thunk we'd get 3D World after Mario Galaxy 2 (and who'd thunk we'd even get Mario Galaxy 2?)Is not speculation after Bowser's fury? Me and my friends said that after the "game" release.
Yes, but open world is a road not travelled yeat. But you're right! They are very imprevisive with Mario... I dream with a Galaxy 3 that will never happen...problem is Mario is less consistent than Zelda. I don't think Bowser's Fury will be a one off, but Nintendo likes to change things up every so often with Mario. who'd a thunk we'd get 3D World after Mario Galaxy 2 (and who'd thunk we'd even get Mario Galaxy 2?)
In fact, I think it's time for a new The Legend of Zelda in the fifth year of switch2's release; we're about to transition from a seven-year console lifecycle to an eight-year console lifecycle, so a new The Legend of Zelda as the second half of the console lifecycle would be appropriateIt's a candidate for a new Cross gen title...
please dont be too expensive on Brazil(i dont want to sell my kidney to buy the console, no R$5000($996) here, that was PS5 price here, let it be R$3.600 here($600)put me strictly in the $400 camp for Switch 2.