>>718092161
Yea, and the wheel isn't simpler to a rocket engine because of the same reason. You really think games weren't simpler back then when they could be made by a handful of people in under 8 months?
But the $200 professional studio equipment is now common. If you used that in your AAA game, it makes your game looks crappy compared to the $2000 professional studio equipment other studios use. And without voice acting, the project is simpler, just like games back then.
You can do full body tracking for $400-600 these days, but it'll looks like shit compared to the $4000-6000 motion-capture tech in a studio with professional actors. I know, I've seen people bitching about it. Everyone likes to bitch these days.
Just resolution? How many AAA games have you played recently? You can't have played many if you think people don't care about resolution or FPS or if a puddle of water was reflecting properly in a Spider-Man game.
Games back then weren't targetting MINIMUM 60FPS and plenty of games had frame drops when they shoved into many things on screen at once, which was COOL back then. It was COOL to see frame drops cause the game shoved too much shit in. Now, it's a major demerit.
Games got released in one region at at time. It could take over a year for a game to get localized in another market and it would need to be done by a regional publisher, because devs and publishers weren't global yet. CONSOLES weren't getting simultaneous global launches.
>Doom 2
Was it released globally in one language?
FF7 OG was under 40 hours to beat. That was considered LONG. Doom 2 was under 10 hours. Imagine paying $70 for a game today that you can beat in under 10 hours or an RPG in under 40 hours. BTW, a full-priced game back in 1995 would be over $100 adjusted for inflation.
$500k is not a lot. Doom launched in 1993. Terminator 2: Judgement Day launched in 1991. T2 cost $100M back then (over $200M today). TODAY, AAA video games are over $200M.
