Menu Close

Capcom Wants To Make Games Faster, But Is That The Answer?

Capcom says they need to reduce the development time for major titles – to about two and a half years rather than three or four – and that's a primary focus for the future.

As reported by GameSpot , Capcom told their investors that while "speeding up development will probably raise the cost," the company will require quality content if they wish to "survive by overcoming intense global competition." As part of this "speed up" process, Capcom cited Resident Evil 6 , which will release about three and a half years after RE5, and Lost Planet 3 , which is slated to launch about two and a half years after the previous sequel.

They also plan to release new Devil May Cry installments every two and a half years ( DMC , the reboot in the works at Ninja Theory, is scheduled to arrive early next year). Now, the question is obvious: Is this the answer Japanese publishers like Capcom have been looking for? They're not talking about "annualization," of course, but brand-name recognition is bigger now than ever before, so it makes sense to put that brand before a consumer's nose as often as possible.

At the same time, some have called the quality of Capcom products into question this generation. Even with more investments to speed up the development time, are they not risking another quality knock? Yeah, you'll have two RE titles out in 2012, but the first – Operation Raccoon City – pretty much sucked. …ah, but then again, that game mysteriously managed to sell quite well.

So maybe we really only need the name, and Capcom needs those names to be out over and over again.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
11 years ago

2.5 ish years sounds way better than 3-4 years. History has shown that companies that release "When its perfect" usually end up wasting money and I don't think I've ever seen a game that takes 4 years to make be way better than games that take two years to make.

The only exception seems to be Blizzard, but I've never seen another company be able to work like Blizzard successfully.

I definitely rather them spend 2.5 years on games, as long as it works for that game and I don't think I've ever seen a good game release yearly without losing quality (Even call of duty games have a two year development cycle)
Imagine if Naughty Dog waited until they were at the level of Uncharted 3 before realeasing Uncharted 1. I for one am glad Naughty Dog did it how they did it

11 years ago

Oh! I thought they meant annualization when I first read the title!

2-3 years sounds like a good number, means a trilogy can be released in a single console generation.

This is one time I'll say "Go ahead Capcom. You're actually right about this one!"


11 years ago

I believe 3 years is the sweet spot for 3rd party games. It'll at least take an additional 6 months to get all multi platforms to work seamlessly. This is especially when Wii U is going to join the HD race.

Unless Capcom put their full team power 400+ employees to work on one multi platform game like Resident Evil 6, otherwise in 2.5 years of development cycle cutting back materials in the game is inevitable.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
11 years ago

2.5 years is good. It seems a pretty standard timeframe for most competent games, though a longer dev cycle can produce true greatness. I'm happy with it, so long as it doesn't result in a drop in quality (which would be more likely if they didn't outsource to studios with a HORRIBLE track record i.e. Slant Six/Spark Unlimited. WTF are they thinking?).

My only "concern" is that they're only now cottoning on to the fact that a shorter dev cycle is beneficial to brand recognition. I mean, every other publisher pushes out a new title in their flagship brands on roughly a 2-3 year schedule, if not annually, yet Capcom has released only a single game in many of theirs. It boggles the mind. Of course, I think they have a smaller internal production line than most, but still…

11 years ago

solid logic except flawed by one problem.
crapcom does not seem to understand that the long development times is not which is hurting their sales.
honestly, how cant they hear their fans screams?
everyone knows the saying in space no one can hear you scream.
well fans are so pissed off at crapcom that phrase is no longer valid!
they can turn out as many sequels as they want, but until they wake up and smell the cheese nothings going to change!

i honestly cant believe how blind and refusing to change they are!
its funny, i guess im just as bad as they are.
i remember a few years ago i had to pick my father up from the airport on his way back from japan.
he seemed really angry so i tried to get it out of him but he would not say a word.
then he finally broke and said if theres only one bit of advice i can give you it will be to NEVER work with asians!
he told me that his job there was setting up new chemical pumps they had never used before it was his job to teach them how they work and how to install and fix them.
and the whole time they were teaching him!
just goes to show how arrogant and refusing to proof they are.
i guess thats why there the same in making games.
they put out something and millions scream its not what they want, but there so blind and set in their ways they refuse to believe it!
you can prove without any doubt but they still wont listen.
so long story short, crapcom do whatever the f*ck you want!
im afraid nothing can save you now!
as the saying goes i want to help you, but only YOU can help yourself!

11 years ago

Actually, I would prefer if all the titles I like were released between 2 to 3 years. I wouldn't have to wait as long and they still can get a lot more done than just a year.

Legit dlc and collector's editions are also appreciated @.@

11 years ago

Three years is the perfect amount of time. If they stagger their releases they would still be able to make good money. I really don't like the idea of shortening development time, but at the same time, the "its done when its done" way is also really silly too and like others have said rarely makes the product really stand out.

In some cases a long development cycle can be good, like Guild Wars 2 I am really glad they are taking their time as a sloppy MMO launch can spell disaster. But in the case of other genres having 4 or 6 year cycles, sometimes by the time they get released the features, or selling points are outdated, the graphics engine doesn't hold up and it just doesn't have the impact it would have had if it released 2 or 3 years sooner.

11 years ago

Ok Capcom ,starting NOW , i give you 2 year to give me a new breath of fire game .

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x