id happy taking years to make games

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 18 April, 2011

18-month dev cycle not for Doom, Rage dev.

Doom, Quake and Rage developer id Software is famous for taking years to make its games – and it's not about to change.

Rage, due out later this year, is the first main id Software-developed game since 2004's Doom 3.

That's a whopping seven year gap between releases, but the first-person shooter specialists say they will never convert to an 18-month development cycle – as so many developers have.

Instead, id will shoot for a two-and-a-half to three-year turnaround.

"18? No," replied design director Matt Hooper when Eurogamer asked.

"Maybe two-and-a-half, three years, with the settled down tech, I think we could get it done.

He added: "I don't want to be pressured to do it and not be able to deliver. That would be sad."

The core development of Rage began three-and-a-half years ago, but some within the legendary studio have worked on it for seven years.

"It feels like we've been going so long on Rage," Hooper said.

In June 2009 ZeniMax Media, which owns Elder Scrolls and Fallout developer Bethesda, bought id.

Following the deal some fans expressed concern that the developer would become more corporate and make games within stricter time frames.

Not so, Hooper said.

"We've always been pushing to get the game we want. And even when we didn't think it was going in the right direction, we were able to re-start and go in a different direction and let the tech catch up to where we're going with design, or let the design catch up with the tech.

"So we've been lucky with that.

"ZeniMax have been great. They've made it clear. They think that path in this industry is making the best games possible. You see it every time we show games. The push is to make the best game, and give them the resources to do that."

Hooper said ZeniMax is happy to let id get on with what it does best – making games, but admitted the studio has grown up in recent years.

"They want us to do what we do, and they've allowed us to continue on that path. There's a lot more discipline in general, and there's some maturing. We're not a garage band anymore. We're a little more structured.

"We have people at different levels of talent, whereas it used to be everybody was top. Now we'll get some entry-level guys in, guys who are fantastic and then they'll move forward through the ranks.

"But still there's something a little different. It's not this really strict corporate culture."

Following Rage, development of Doom 4 will begin in earnest.

Five minutes of new Rage gameplay.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (29) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • StolenGlory #1 1 year ago

    So they haven't even started development on Doom 4 yet? I was under the impression that worked had already started on it.

  • arcam #2 1 year ago

    Good on 'em. I can't think of single game in my personal top ten that had a sequel within 18 months.

  • sonicyoda #3 1 year ago

    Controversial. I think there's quite a few that would say Doom 3 didn't deliver.

  • flaming.carrot #4 1 year ago

    Is the Rage/ID Tech 5 engine going to be available to other developers for use in their games? ID seemed to have moved away from that idea since the Quake engine used to go toe-to-toe with Unreal engine back in the day.

  • cianchristopher #5 1 year ago

    They made Wolfenstein 3D in 1992, Doom in 1993, Doom II in 1994, Quake in 1996, Quake II in 1997 and Quake III in 1999.

    Since then, we've had Doom 3 in 2004 and nothing else.

    Maybe you should go back to the yearly sequels, id. Maybe they're not such a bad thing after all...

  • PixelPirate #6 1 year ago

    Rage looks interesting, but the problem is that id take so long to develop each engine, that the Unreal tech gets used by other developers each time instead. Throw Cryengine in to the mix and id are going to have to really impress with Rage.

    I want to like Rage, but so far all the tech demos make me think "another bland shooter, but we have cars" I need more than what they have demoed to get me remotely interested.

  • LazyNinjaUk #7 1 year ago

    I'm in favor of longer development cycles if it means the game is more polished and worth the wait, but you run the risk of falling into Alan Wake territory when a game takes longer than projected and while being a good game in it's own right, fails to live up to mounting expectations.

  • SomaticSense #8 1 year ago

    @cianchristopher

    That's a really good point. They are insisting on taking so much time for quality releases, yet the only one of their games thus far to fall outside the two year development cycle is arguably their weakest.

    Games nowdays take a lot more time and resources to develop, so I don't think a return to yearly releases is entirely feasible if we want id to remain a AAA developer. But it shows an argument for maybe spending less of that time developing game engines and more of it developing, you know, actual games.
    Edited by SomaticSense at 18/04/11 @ 16:02

  • Cjail #9 1 year ago

    To each his own...development time!
    What matters in the end is the result an not the time it took!
    Edited by Cjail at 18/04/11 @ 16:43

  • LHH #10 1 year ago

    idtech 5 will only be used by games that are published buy Bethesda.

    Also I liked Doom3, thought it was a great game. Looking forward to Rage personally but only as I have a hard on for Carmacks engines.

  • carrotcake #11 1 year ago

    @first comment. No no, they have started Doom 4, that's going on downstairs while the other guys are working on Rage.... I uh, listen to podcasts and stuff featuring John Carmack. Perhaps this article means Doom 4 development can go into full gear when Rage has been shipped.

  • Mister-Wario #12 1 year ago

    "I want to like Rage, but so far all the tech demos make me think "another bland shooter, but we have cars"".

    I know what you mean. Sure, it looks nice, but does it look original? I must admit, when I first saw the screenshots I thought I was looking at Borderlands.

  • LHH #13 1 year ago

    Well if you're looking for originality in an FPS then you're a retard. Sure, look for the next gimmick, but an original idea!? LOLOLOL

  • Softie2k #14 1 year ago

    The new id engine doesn't look like anything special tbh.

  • Zaiz #15 1 year ago

    The good news is, that not many people are hyped up for Rage in comparison to other games. People are expecting Rage to disappoint at this point by the look of it.

    ...it really doesn't help that the last game they made was Doom 3.

  • dirtysteve #16 1 year ago

    It must be nice to have that freedom, just as long as they don't abuse it, like 3D Realms.

  • wizbob #17 1 year ago

    "But it shows an argument for maybe spending less of that time developing game engines and more of it developing, you know, actual games."

    I think it's important that there are a variety of game engines, a view that's shared by many more people since Unreal3 took such a huge chunk of the market.

    Rage may not be the most original game but there's room for an engine that, for example, supports huge maps with texture streaming. As opposed to Space marines in corridors.

  • MaybeLater #18 1 year ago

    @Softie2K: I hope you're joking, The ID tech 5 engine is in GamesTM's '10 Most prolific game engines' for good reason ( not that you should need them to tell you that ).

    @ LHH: " idtech 5 will only be used by games that are published (by) Bethesda"

    What makes you say that? History would suggest the exact opposite is true where ID Software and John Carmack are involved, do you have evidence to back up your claim?

  • specular #19 1 year ago

    Kinda looks like Fallout 3 with vehicles.

  • davisorle #20 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • sabbede #21 1 year ago

    I'd always rather have a great game then a rush job. I don't care if it takes ten years to do it.


    As for licensing Tech5 out, I seem to recall reading an article stating that they would be doing no such thing.
    Edited by sabbede at 18/04/11 @ 22:14

  • Nephirion #22 1 year ago

    ID we are glad your happy, what would make us happy is if you shut up and just finished the game rather than 5 min rendered footage videos, until a playable demo I shall consider your game vapour-ware.

  • Sevens #23 1 year ago

    ZeniMax which allows for the unacceptably bugged Fallouts... yeah, fantastic.

  • Subdominator #24 1 year ago

    Yeah, id no longer gives out licences to its (do you see what I did there?) engine because they aren't in a position to do all the support. Only Bethesda Studios can use id Tech 5 and future engines.

    BTW wasn't the last id game Quake Live in 2010? Doom 3 was obviously the last retail game, but it's not like they were working only on Rage for seven years. IIRC a lot of id were also working with Splash Damage on Quake Wars which came out in 2007.
    Edited by Subdominator at 19/04/11 @ 07:28

  • jimr9999us #25 1 year ago

    Carmack and Id have earned the right to spend 20 years on a new version of Tetris if they so wish.

  • L0cky #26 1 year ago

    @MaybeLater:

    "@ LHH: " idtech 5 will only be used by games that are published (by) Bethesda"

    What makes you say that? History would suggest the exact opposite is true where ID Software and John Carmack are involved, do you have evidence to back up your claim?"

    Didn't have to look far...

  • bivith #27 1 year ago

    They are targetting 60 fps for this on the consoles.

  • MaybeLater #28 1 year ago

    @L0cky

    Thanks. Massively disappointing and somewhat unbelievable even with the evidence. Hope they change their minds.

  • natureboy #29 1 year ago

    With the way the industry is (closures, job losses etc) waiting 2-3yrs to launch a game is too risky. What if the company goes bust?