Capcom Planning To Reduce Development Cycles

It's strange, I've somehow become accustomed to associating long development periods — say three to four years — with quality products, which is a bit silly. Now Capcom has come out and stated that it wishes to reduce the time its games spend in development, and doesn't mind if it has to spend extra cash to make it so.

"We want to reduce the time needed to develop major titles from the usual three-to-four years to only 2.5 years," said Capcom CEO Kenzo Tsujimoto, as reported by Gamespot. "Speeding up development will probably raise the cost. But creating quality content will be vital to Capcom's ability to survive by overcoming intense global competition."

'AAA' Video games, much like any other creative endeavour seem to work on that whole Quality/Time/Money thing. If you invest time and money, you'll most likely get quality. Capcom's output this generation has been pretty stellar for the most part, but it has taken a while for some games to get to the finishing point.

I would like to play Resident Evil 6 at some point.

Capcom aims for more Devil May Cry in 2015 [Gamespot]


Comments

    Actually, this isn't a bad thing. I'd like to see AAA games come out quicker, and there's certainly a market for it.

      You say that, but is anyone thrilled about the yearly iterations of Assassin's Creed ever since the second game? I'd prefer each to have come out 2-3 years apart if it meant a bit more variety, rather than the expansion-pack feel of the last two.

      There isn't a lot of time you can cut out of the nuts-and-bolts programming and in-game asset creation, at least without ending up a buggy mess, so you can bet the majority of tightening will come from conceptual development, where the root of most innovation lies.

      End result, more cookie-cutter clones and barely upgraded sequels.

        Couldn't agree more!

          You say that, but is anyone thrilled about the yearly iterations of Assassin’s Creed ever since the second game? I’d prefer each to have come out 2-3 years apart if it meant a bit more variety, rather than the expansion-pack feel of the last two.

          There isn’t a lot of time you can cut out of the nuts-and-bolts programming and in-game asset creation, at least without ending up a buggy mess, so you can bet the majority of tightening will come from conceptual development, where the root of most innovation lies.

          End result, more cookie-cutter clones and barely upgraded sequels.

    Actually, this isn't a bad thing. I'd like to see AAA games come out quicker, and there's certainly a market for it.

    My backlog is big enough as it is.
    Damn work.

    I dunno, I'm all for more games but I hope the shorter development cycle does not come at the cost of game quality or developer workloads.

    So basically the opposite of what we need? In my experience the difference in a 1-2 year developed game and a 3-5 one is astronomical. Granted it's implied they'll spend more to get just as much work done in a shorter time, but presumably this means more people, rather than the same people that are intimately familiar with the project striving for perfection. Generally the more time you have to think about something the better it will turn out, that year could be the difference between 'You know what, this mechanic really doesn't work, it isn't balanced or fun, let's change it.' and 'Ah crap, this isn't fun at all but we've got a deadline next month.'

    And not to sound like a broken record, but I like my games like I like my books, not movies, in that movies these days tend to be pushed out as fast as possible to capitalise on their popularity, it's not about making the best movie possible, it's about making the most money possible, and of course there it is, can't really argue against that I suppose, though books are good example of finding a somewhat happy medium.

      It depends on how much money they're willing to invest and how lienient they are with deadlines. Half the time with double the resources and enough new workers to make up the difference? Doable, if a bit worrying.

      I'll wait and see how they actually implement this.

    Of course they don't mind spending the extra cash. They'll make up for it with their disc-locked content when they lock the final level and ending for their games until you pay more.

      That's Square Enix you're thinking of.

        Sounds like capcom to me.

    Of course they can spend more money on it for the AAA stuff, when they are reaping in the money from DLC (Costumes/Arenas) for their fighter games that are spewed out as often as the sun goes down.

    The funny part is that Megaman is in the logo...

    ...sigh...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now