There's no such thing as a "lazy developer"

The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON.  Games are not all made equal:  they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles.  Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins.  Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy".  Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games.  Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap.  Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed.  It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3.  Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
Teufelhuhn

No, a lazy dev is one that tacks on Wii controls onto an already made game designed for another console, See Ubisoft. 

I point you to the Spiderman 3 games.  Any of them.

'nuff said.

To make a game that "pushes" the Wii would cost less than it would to "push" the 360 or PS3. Truth be spoken, it's just that there's an obvious cash in for the hype. It takes about1 1/2 to 2 years almost for a good gamet o be made. That's how many years at least most great games are, a long time in development won't guarantee a great game, but the likelyhood of it being more refined is higher.

The reason Wii has little "high production" value games is because the devs did not anticipate theWii being successful, and when it was, they had nothing for it. Some devs are really trying to make something extraordinary for it, but it will take some time obviously. It happened with the DS, and now it's happening with the Wii. The DS itself had terrible games at launch, and many ports that had half-a**ed touch screen gimmicks. Just wait, next year or so we'll see many more high quality games, I'm sure of that.

By this argument, you are essentially saying that the Wii is following the path of the PS1.

You initially say nintendo has made a system that specializes in cheap-to-develop games, but you say most of the good dev teams are working with Mircosoft and Sony (and assume they will continue to?) because less effort is needed to develop a game with more computing power. You kind of are making the fallacy of equivocation though, by saying a system is more graphically powerful, devs will continue to contract themselves to that system simply because of the prettier product that results.

So...the N64 was a graphically superior platform, but its better performance didn't keep all those 3rd party devs hooked. PS won by a landslide, and with inferior graphics. This argument is definitely debatable.

No, a lazy dev is one that tacks on Wii controls onto an already made game designed for another console, See Ubisoft.

axt113

More like, and underpaid dev...

Also, many devs aren't as talented as others...  There are only very few John Carmack's, Gabe Newell's, and Juilian Eggebrecth's in the world (just to name a few easily recognizable)...  (I'm going to ignore Mark Rein's team, the Unreal Engine 3 while nice looking, really feels archaic...). 

I point you to the Spiderman 3 games. Any of them.

'nuff said.

RahnAetas

Developers that make movie games have to pay royalties and licensing fees to use the movie material, which means thinner profit margins and therefore they need to be made with lower budgets.  They also have tight time schedules, since their release needs to coincide with the movie release. 

To make a game that "pushes" the Wii would cost less than it would to "push" the 360 or PS3. Truth be spoken, it's just that there's an obvious cash in for the hype. It takes about1 1/2 to 2 years almost for a good gamet o be made. That's how many years at least most great games are, a long time in development won't guarantee a great game, but the likelyhood of it being more refined is higher.

The reason Wii has little "high production" value games is because the devs did not anticipate theWii being successful, and when it was, they had nothing for it. Some devs are really trying to make something extraordinary for it, but it will take some time obviously. It happened with the DS, and now it's happening with the Wii. The DS itself had terrible games at launch, and many ports that had half-a**ed touch screen gimmicks. Just wait, next year or so we'll see many more high quality games, I'm sure of that.

yoshi_64

Quoted for truth. I'm not sure if there are lazy devs or not, but I think a lot of devs get called lazy for reasons that are out of their control. Devs don't really have a choice right now with the wii. All they have enough time for is ports. Many devs get smaller budjets or time constraints. Spiderman-3 devs were told the HAD to release SM3 with the movie. Obviously they needed more time. Too bad.

You initially say nintendo has made a system that specializes in cheap-to-develop games, but you say most of the good dev teams are working with Mircosoft and Sony (and assume they will continue to?) because less effort is needed to develop a game with more computing power. You kind of are making the fallacy of equivocation though, by saying a system is more graphically powerful, devs will continue to contract themselves to that system simply because of the prettier product that results.

SolomonGrundy13

I'm making no assumptions about what platform developers will focus on in the future, I'm just trying to explain the games that have already come out or will be released soon.

However if you want my opinion, I think that unless the Wii starts kicking butt PS2-stylle then the more experienced dev teams (not the actual companies, just teams within the companies) will continue to be assigned to where they're needed more: on the 360, PC, and PS3.

[QUOTE="SolomonGrundy13"]

You initially say nintendo has made a system that specializes in cheap-to-develop games, but you say most of the good dev teams are working with Mircosoft and Sony (and assume they will continue to?) because less effort is needed to develop a game with more computing power. You kind of are making the fallacy of equivocation though, by saying a system is more graphically powerful, devs will continue to contract themselves to that system simply because of the prettier product that results.

Teufelhuhn

I'm making no assumptions about what platform developers will focus on in the future, I'm just trying to explain the games that have already come out or will be released soon.

However if you want my opinion, I think that unless the Wii starts kicking butt PS2-stylle then the more experienced dev teams (not the actual companies, just teams within the companies) will continue to be assigned to where they're needed more: on the 360, PC, and PS3.

You mean like selling 10X the sales of its competitors? :P

Anyways devs are lazy, tacking on Wii controls onto a PS2 game is laziness and just a cash grab 

[QUOTE="SolomonGrundy13"]

You initially say nintendo has made a system that specializes in cheap-to-develop games, but you say most of the good dev teams are working with Mircosoft and Sony (and assume they will continue to?) because less effort is needed to develop a game with more computing power. You kind of are making the fallacy of equivocation though, by saying a system is more graphically powerful, devs will continue to contract themselves to that system simply because of the prettier product that results.

Teufelhuhn

I'm making no assumptions about what platform developers will focus on in the future, I'm just trying to explain the games that have already come out or will be released soon.

However if you want my opinion, I think that unless the Wii starts kicking butt PS2-stylle then the more experienced dev teams (not the actual companies, just teams within the companies) will continue to be assigned to where they're needed more: on the 360, PC, and PS3.

If the Wii gets the sales over the competition, it will not matter about hardeware. There will be devs of course making games for the other systems, no doubt. But the majority of the support will likel go on to the winner in sales. It's happened, time and time again. It will also be a bigger incentive to develop fo, because if the Wii has a larger install base over the competition, the devs will surely flock. Who won't pass up an opportunity to make big bucks with a system that keeps development costs low. Lower Cost+Larger bas= better chance of bigger payout.

The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON.  Games are not all made equal:  they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles.  Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins.  Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy".  Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games.  Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap.  Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed.  It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3.  Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
Teufelhuhn

Two words: Big Rigs

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

I point you to the Spiderman 3 games. Any of them.

'nuff said.

Teufelhuhn

Developers that make movie games have to pay royalties and licensing fees to use the movie material, which means thinner profit margins and therefore they need to be made with lower budgets.  They also have tight time schedules, since their release needs to coincide with the movie release. 

Be it lazy or incompetent, the result still ends up being the same:  Games that really shouldn't exist.

That is what the Spiderman 3 games are a testament to really, it's a statement of what the video game industry is like right now.  What it says to me that developers are either lazy, or incompetent, with only a few companies with the drive, and flexibility to produce something at least half-decent.

Incidentally, the price tag to make a Wii game is as low as 10% of what it takes to make one for the PS3 or the 360.  So I guess the third reason I can add to my list is "cheap skates"

If there is no such thing as a lazy developer, every game should be a damn masterpiece. The fact is that there are plenty of games out there that have such screwy jobs done on them it's insane.

If it's not laziness, it's incompetence.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="SolomonGrundy13"]

You initially say nintendo has made a system that specializes in cheap-to-develop games, but you say most of the good dev teams are working with Mircosoft and Sony (and assume they will continue to?) because less effort is needed to develop a game with more computing power. You kind of are making the fallacy of equivocation though, by saying a system is more graphically powerful, devs will continue to contract themselves to that system simply because of the prettier product that results.

yoshi_64

I'm making no assumptions about what platform developers will focus on in the future, I'm just trying to explain the games that have already come out or will be released soon.

However if you want my opinion, I think that unless the Wii starts kicking butt PS2-stylle then the more experienced dev teams (not the actual companies, just teams within the companies) will continue to be assigned to where they're needed more: on the 360, PC, and PS3.

If the Wii gets the sales over the competition, it will not matter about hardeware. There will be devs of course making games for the other systems, no doubt. But the majority of the support will likel go on to the winner in sales. It's happened, time and time again. It will also be a bigger incentive to develop fo, because if the Wii has a larger install base over the competition, the devs will surely flock. Who won't pass up an opportunity to make big bucks with a system that keeps development costs low. 

Like I said, I have no doubts that you'll have a lot of developers working on the Wii if it has a large marketshare lead.  But I think even then it will be a tough choice when developers try to decide which console they want to put the really big-budget games on, since those games wouldn't be cheap on the Wii either.  We already know that the Xbox can support big sales with a relatively small userbase, so we know at least that console will always be a viable option.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON. Games are not all made equal: they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles. Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins. Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy". Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games. Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap. Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3. Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
organic_machine

Two words: Big Rigs

I don't think its quite fair to call the people who made that game "developers".  :P 

If there is no such thing as a lazy developer, every game should be a damn masterpiece. The fact is that there are plenty of games out there that have such screwy jobs done on them it's insane.

If it's not laziness, it's incompetence.

Redmoonxl2

I dont think anyone with years of programming, level design, 3D graphics, game design, sound mixing, and marketing experience or education wants to make a bad game. But theres not much they can do if they run short on the budget. They arent going to starve and not feed their families for months in order to finish a game. Those crappy games tend to result in rush products. 

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON. Games are not all made equal: they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles. Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins. Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy". Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games. Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap. Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3. Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
Teufelhuhn

Two words: Big Rigs

I don't think its quite fair to call the people who made that game "developers". :P

:lol: 

Like I said, I have no doubts that you'll have a lot of developers working on the Wii if it has a large marketshare lead.  But I think even then it will be a tough choice when developers try to decide which console they want to put the really big-budget games on, since those games wouldn't be cheap on the Wii either.  We already know that the Xbox can support big sales with a relatively small userbase, so we know at least that console will always be a viable option. Teufelhuhn

However, a Wii game can certainly be less, it can also be more. It depends on how you look on it really. A Wii game can certainly cost more than a Gundam game was I believe. Though that PS3 game is nothing of course. Also, it can cost more if they have tons of voice actors, cutscenes, and the need to hire script writers, and programmers. But some of that can be cheaper, like programmers, as it would not need larger teams to develop ttheir games. Just time and that's it.

Still, the Wii will no doubt be a choice for devs looking to make money and also have lower costs, and the Wii or PS2 are safe for that... Though the PS2 may not live forever eiher. I still believe that if the Wii gains the most in sales, it will gain much more support, and not just cheap cash ins all the time. It will have to deal with the competition to make sure their game will sell, and devs like Capcom, Konami, and Suda51 studios along with a few more are bringing games that are already looking good.

Be it lazy or incompetent, the result still ends up being the same: Games that really shouldn't exist.

RahnAetas

The explanation I just offered you had absolutely nothing to do with laziness or incompetence.

  

That is what the Spiderman 3 games are a testament to really, it's a statement of what the video game industry is like right now. What it says to me that developers are either lazy, or incompetent, with only a few companies with the drive, and flexibility to produce something at least half-decent.

RahnAetas

Or perhaps few companies have the money and time to devote to making AAA games?  It's not like developers can make a fantastic game in 3 months for $300,000 just because they have the drive to do so, good games take time.   

Incidentally, the price tag to make a Wii game is as low as 10% of what it takes to make one for the PS3 or the 360. So I guess the third reason I can add to my list is "cheap skates"

RahnAetas

Ummm...maybe if you're comparing Wii Sports to Heavenly Sword.  A Wii game with high production values can cost nearly as much as a PS3 game with high production values. Weaker hardware doesn't automatically equate to low development cost, in fact sometimes it can just make things more costly since its more difficult to wring performance out of older hardware.  

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]

If there is no such thing as a lazy developer, every game should be a damn masterpiece. The fact is that there are plenty of games out there that have such screwy jobs done on them it's insane.

If it's not laziness, it's incompetence.

XaosII

I dont think anyone with years of programming, level design, 3D graphics, game design, sound mixing, and marketing experience or education wants to make a bad game. But theres not much they can do if they run short on the budget. They arent going to starve and not feed their families for months in order to finish a game. Those crappy games tend to result in rush products.

Bingo.  Developers are people too, they live in the real world.  If it comes between money and getting 1.0 higher on a GameSpot review, they're probably going to choose the former. 

Actually, there is. This is a response without reading the post:

 Example: Ubisoft, they can make quality games for 360 but when they port it to the PS3 it turns out so half ass'd, why is that? Because they're too lazy to learn how to port to the PS3 and or develop for it period.

Now after reading:

Wii's 3rd party support is really lacking. I don't really think its the budget.. why make the game if its just crap mini games or another port.. They should use the money for something new, something productive. 

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

Be it lazy or incompetent, the result still ends up being the same: Games that really shouldn't exist.

Teufelhuhn

The explanation I just offered you had absolutely nothing to do with laziness or incompetence.

  

That is what the Spiderman 3 games are a testament to really, it's a statement of what the video game industry is like right now. What it says to me that developers are either lazy, or incompetent, with only a few companies with the drive, and flexibility to produce something at least half-decent.

RahnAetas

Or perhaps few companies have the money and time to devote to making AAA games?  It's not like developers can make a fantastic game in 3 months for $300,000 just because they have the drive to do so, good games take time.   

Incidentally, the price tag to make a Wii game is as low as 10% of what it takes to make one for the PS3 or the 360. So I guess the third reason I can add to my list is "cheap skates"

RahnAetas

Ummm...maybe if you're comparing Wii Sports to Heavenly Sword.  A Wii game with high production values can cost nearly as much as a PS3 game with high production values. Weaker hardware doesn't automatically equate to low development cost, in fact sometimes it can just make things more costly since its more difficult to wring performance out of older hardware.  

*sigh*

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14497

At least I provide sources for my ludicrous claims.  Wii games are signifigantly cheaper to develop for.

The original Xbox? I do hope that's not what you meant. If you meant the 360 and how it's given games like Lost Planet and Dead Rising much success despite not being a famous franchise, and Gears of War as well, I think you're right. Then again, the Wii and PS3 I believe have just as much success, it depends on many factors truly.

yoshi_64

Yeah I meant the 360. I was just pointing out that it will probably always be a viable option even if it only ends up having 20% of the Wii's sales.  Even teh original Xbox was like this, where it was wayyy behind the PS2, yet you had games like Halo selling 8 million copies and third-parties continuing to support it. 

However, a Wii game can certainly be less, it can also be more. It depends on how you look on it really. A Wii game can certainly cost more than a Gundam game was I believe. Though that PS3 game is nothing of course. Also, it can cost more if they have tons of voice actors, cutscenes, and the need to hire script writers, and programmers. But some of that can be cheaper, like programmers, as it would not need larger teams to develop ttheir games. Just time and that's it.

Still, the Wii will no doubt be a choice for devs looking to make money and also have lower costs, and the Wii or PS2 are safe for that... Though the PS2 may not live forever eiher. I still believe that if the Wii gains the most in sales, it will gain much more support, and not just cheap cash ins all the time. It will have to deal with the competition to make sure their game will sell, and devs like Capcom, Konami, and Suda51 studios along with a few more are bringing games that are already looking good.

yoshi_64

I certainly hope it doesn't just get cheap cash-ins, regardless of how much it sells.  No console deserves that.  :P

The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON.  Games are not all made equal:  they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles.  Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins.  Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy".  Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games.  Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap.  Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed.  It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3.  Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

Be it lazy or incompetent, the result still ends up being the same: Games that really shouldn't exist.

Teufelhuhn

The explanation I just offered you had absolutely nothing to do with laziness or incompetence.

That is what the Spiderman 3 games are a testament to really, it's a statement of what the video game industry is like right now. What it says to me that developers are either lazy, or incompetent, with only a few companies with the drive, and flexibility to produce something at least half-decent.

RahnAetas

Or perhaps few companies have the money and time to devote to making AAA games? It's not like developers can make a fantastic game in 3 months for $300,000 just because they have the drive to do so, good games take time.

Incidentally, the price tag to make a Wii game is as low as 10% of what it takes to make one for the PS3 or the 360. So I guess the third reason I can add to my list is "cheap skates"

RahnAetas

Ummm...maybe if you're comparing Wii Sports to Heavenly Sword. A Wii game with high production values can cost nearly as much as a PS3 game with high production values. Weaker hardware doesn't automatically equate to low development cost, in fact sometimes it can just make things more costly since its more difficult to wring performance out of older hardware.

The article that Bloomberg ran that quoted EA and UBIsoft disagress with you... They say the cost of a high production game on teh Wii is on average 1/10th or less the cost of a high production game on the PS3 or Xbox 360.. Im sure developer could spend as much on a Wii game as a big budget PS3 game if they wanted too... but... really they don't have to... because you don't as many people or time for Wii games. 

No lazy devs o'rly ??

When I see team ninja games for the saturn,ps1/2,xbox and ps3 I really wonder about that.:roll:

*sigh*

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14497

At least I provide sources for my ludicrous claims. Wii games are signifigantly cheaper to develop for.

RahnAetas

He said that Wii games could cost "as little as half" as much as the PS3/360, which means that 50% is pretty much the cheapest you could make a Wii game for.  That's a little more than 10%, sir.

Besides, the games he's making aren't exactly pushing the envelope here (Cars, Spongebob, etc.).  My point was that the AAA games will still be relatively expensive to make on the Wii, even if the amount is less than it would be on PS3/360.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON. Games are not all made equal: they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles. Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins. Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy". Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games. Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap. Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3. Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
jg4xchamp

Quite clearly Ubi wasn't willing to put as much money into the PS3 port as it did into the 360 version. Ubisoft games have always sold big on the Xbox, its no secret. So when it comes time for Ubi to port a game to the PS3, they have to decide: "do we want to keep the budget and development time low and save money, or do we want to put in lots of time and money and really take advantage of the PS3?" When the PS3 marketshare is as low as it is, it probably wasn't a bad business decision to do what they did.

*sigh*

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14497

At least I provide sources for my ludicrous claims. Wii games are signifigantly cheaper to develop for.

RahnAetas

That doesnt make it cheap though. It might be less expensive, but i dont think anyone can just hand out $5 - $8 million bucks to any Joe "I wanna make a game like GTA but even bigger!" Schmoe to makea title.

Big RigsNobuoMusicMaker

Superman 64 

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]

If there is no such thing as a lazy developer, every game should be a damn masterpiece. The fact is that there are plenty of games out there that have such screwy jobs done on them it's insane.

If it's not laziness, it's incompetence.

XaosII

I dont think anyone with years of programming, level design, 3D graphics, game design, sound mixing, and marketing experience or education wants to make a bad game. But theres not much they can do if they run short on the budget. They arent going to starve and not feed their families for months in order to finish a game. Those crappy games tend to result in" rush products". 

How about Tekken tag tournment on PS2  , it was A rush project and there wasn't anything wrong with the game.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]The "lazy developer" is a myth perpetuated by Internet forumites, kinda like the Nintendo ON. Games are not all made equal: they have different budgets, different teams, different consoles, different tools, different consoles. Not every developer can afford to spend 4 years squeezing every ounce of performance out of their system like a first-party (or Mikami when he made RE4), at some point it comes down to profit margins. Developers don't just sometimes say "well I could make a AAA game, but I don't feel like it so I'm just going be lazy". Instead they must carefully balance development time, graphics quality, and potential sales.

That being said, there's a good reason Wii games don't have graphics that are past the GameCube level: Nintendo is pushing their console as a place to make simple, cheap-to-develop games. Making a game that pushes a console to its limits (like Super Mario Galaxy) is not cheap. Even making a game of RE4 quality would cost a ton to make on the Wii due to all the assets needed. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to push the Wii to its limits, when the same amount would get you much better performance on the 360 or PS3. Which is why you have most of the experienced dev teams working on those platforms, and not the Wii.
Teufelhuhn

Quite clearly Ubi wasn't willing to put as much money into the PS3 port as it did into the 360 version. Ubisoft games have always sold big on the Xbox, its no secret. So when it comes time for Ubi to port a game to the PS3, they have to decide: "do we want to keep the budget and development time low and save money, or do we want to put in lots of time and money and really take advantage of the PS3?" When the PS3 marketshare is as low as it is, it probably wasn't a bad business decision to do what they did.

Developers bust their asses but they are pressured by the publisher to make tight deadlines. It's not like a dev could make a great game in the 6 months they are given. That 6 month includes the whole processes of a game, not just the developer's part, it's also planning, testing and much more.

I would stop using the term "lazy dev" and start using the term "greedy publisher". 

i consider that lazy, when a dev doesnt put enough effort in to providing a high quality product to all of its customers. i mean sega and ea werent lazy with ssx blur, and sonic. capcom isnt looks lazy with resident evil umbrella chronicles. they dont look 360/PS3 level but they look good, and the sonic and ssx were well done games. Ubisoft has always done bad ports. jg4xchamp

Making a smart business decision is lazy?  If Ubi didn't think the crappy graphics were going to hurt the sales of the game on the PS3 (or if they didn't think it was going to sell that much in the first place), why should they spend the time and effort to make it look fantastic?  They can't just spend a ton of money on a game just because it well help them sleep better at night knowing they gave everyone the best possible experience.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]i consider that lazy, when a dev doesnt put enough effort in to providing a high quality product to all of its customers. i mean sega and ea werent lazy with ssx blur, and sonic. capcom isnt looks lazy with resident evil umbrella chronicles. they dont look 360/PS3 level but they look good, and the sonic and ssx were well done games. Ubisoft has always done bad ports. Teufelhuhn

Making a smart business decision is lazy? If Ubi didn't think the crappy graphics were going to hurt the sales of the game on the PS3 (or if they didn't think it was going to sell that much in the first place), why should they spend the time and effort to make it look fantastic? They can't just spend a ton of money on a game just because it well help them sleep better at night knowing they gave everyone the best possible experience.

Well, Most people here on SW don't realize that *gasp* game development is a business. It's about money, great experiences are only done if a profit will come out of it...

That's not to say that developers don't practice the art of design, no, but depending on the case, they only go as far as needed...

However, some developers have set standards for themselves in either technology or gameplay. Examples being, Id, Epic, Retro Studios, Factor 5, Blizzard, RARE(they seem to be recovering from their... creative slump)etc. So anything less than great would be detrimental to them...

However, EA, Activison, and Ubisoft have become game factories... Bascially, they put out a prototype, ie. a few great games that push the limits, innovate, etc (Ubisoft comes to mind), then once they became recognized, they began "Mass producing" games... Quality not guarrenteed...

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

*sigh*

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14497

At least I provide sources for my ludicrous claims. Wii games are signifigantly cheaper to develop for.

XaosII

That doesnt make it cheap though. It might be less expensive, but i dont think anyone can just hand out $5 - $8 million bucks to any Joe "I wanna make a game like GTA but even bigger!" Schmoe to makea title.

Amazing how money is suddenly a non-factor in any of this.  A 10-15 million dollar gap in development costs is suddenly nothing.  Spelled out simply for the same money invested two or three Wii games could be produced. 

Now, if people invested 20 million dollars into a Wii game, there's a *very* good chance that the game produced will be half-decent.  But if they spend 5 million dollars, and barely push the Wii's hardware to do anything, then I can safely say they are being cheapskates.  Invest a few million dollars into a Wii game, and it'll come out better.

So developers for the Wii are lazy, or incompetent, or just plain cheap.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amWmy6_JG16U&refer=home

Go to the bottom of the page if you want to see the rather increasing gap in development cost.

"The Wii may prove to be a windfall, since games cost just $2 million to $5 million to create, a fraction of the $20 million to $30 million spent on PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 titles, analyst Taylor said. In addition, Wii appears to be expanding the market, rather than stealing sales from rivals, he said. "

how can midway not be LAzy of they dish out something like MKA?the game was supposed to be the best MKA for the PS2/xbox ever(it pretty much is..but by a landslide),but it was nothing but copy n pasted characters with dumbed down combos!the graphics were the f-in same,the fight engine was tweaked a little,and the Create a character couldve been 5x better!midway is a lazy dev,but maybe they gonna switch their game up with teh upcomng MK8

What about the big rig's devs? munu9

that game was a classic..end of story :lol: