Yearly CoD releases are taking longer to make and costing more to produce though; the most recent CoD we have numbers for, which was a number of years ago at this point, cost $700M to make, and that was the most expensive one at the time. They used to have two studios alternating releases every other year. Now there are three studios on a rotation with about a dozen support studios that all used to make other games, and now they just make CoD.
“Charging more” is where this gets ambiguous though. A game like Assassin’s Creed charges less these days than it used to, relative to how much content they put in the box. I’m long since checked out of Assassin’s Creed, but I think the average game could stand to be leaner and cost the same in the interest of coming out faster and for less money. That would be called shrinkflation in any other industry, which is the same as charging more.
warm@kbin.earth 2 days ago
You cannot convince me it cost $700M to make any of the recent CoD games. They are rehashes of each other. That has to include literally every dollar spent during the games development lifecycle, right? Otherwise they are just pissing money away.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It is development spend + marketing spend + post-launch DLC spend. Even forking the same code base, you can see where the money goes. The campaigns are original each time, new map design requires time and money, etc. In the past 5 years, there has probably been a CoD game that cost $1B to make, as this data is from 2020.
warm@kbin.earth 2 days ago
If it includes marketing then yeah, it's mostly that. $700M is a ridiculous amount for what CoD is, on a purely development basis.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I usually hear of marketing spend matching development cost, so it’s probably closer to 50/50. The documents that these figures came from didn’t itemize them, but it’s notable that 2020 is when current gen consoles came out, and more fidelity usually correlates to more time and money to make the assets.