Throw another year or two into the development of Halo 2, let the workers go home to their families once in a while, and you’d have had something amazing
So, that’s gonna have some financial impact.
It sounds like Halo 2 was done in 10 months, which is pretty short. So, okay, say you add another 24 months. Gotta pay your operating costs of about 340% what you originally were going to pay.
That also means that it takes longer until the game can start being sold – you’re basically “paying interest” on any capital tied up until sales start. Say the cost of capital is 5% per year. Your first month is gonna cost another 15% finance overhead instead of under 5% because of the time value of money.
Now, I’m not saying that this is a bad thing to do. I think that it’s generally the case that if you throw more dev time and money at a game, it gets better. But…that isn’t free. I see people complaining about game prices, and what I’m asking is that if a game costs a couple times as much to make, are consumers willing to pay a couple times as much?
Bruh, the release of Halo 2 was a phenomenon. That series was shitting gold two decades ago. A few years later, Microsoft was selling 360s at a loss to make their money back on Halo and other games.
The restructuring of the engine meant that there was no playable build of Halo 2 for nearly a year, and assets and environments produced by art and design teams could not be prototyped, bottlenecking development.[16] Griesemer recalled that development was “moving backwards”, and after E3 the team realized that much of what the team had worked on for the past two years would have to be scrapped.
So, Halo 2 actually spent 3 years in development, it’s just that only 10 months of that was useful work. They could afford another year of development.
So, that’s gonna have some financial impact.
It sounds like Halo 2 was done in 10 months, which is pretty short. So, okay, say you add another 24 months. Gotta pay your operating costs of about 340% what you originally were going to pay.
That also means that it takes longer until the game can start being sold – you’re basically “paying interest” on any capital tied up until sales start. Say the cost of capital is 5% per year. Your first month is gonna cost another 15% finance overhead instead of under 5% because of the time value of money.
Now, I’m not saying that this is a bad thing to do. I think that it’s generally the case that if you throw more dev time and money at a game, it gets better. But…that isn’t free. I see people complaining about game prices, and what I’m asking is that if a game costs a couple times as much to make, are consumers willing to pay a couple times as much?
Bruh, the release of Halo 2 was a phenomenon. That series was shitting gold two decades ago. A few years later, Microsoft was selling 360s at a loss to make their money back on Halo and other games.
So, Halo 2 actually spent 3 years in development, it’s just that only 10 months of that was useful work. They could afford another year of development.