Hehe well we are sort of in agreement then

Doug is right in that the tools do not make the game, but they can certainly help reduce effort, cost etc.

This is a bit of what I was trying to say really --- tools are just tools. Average tools are just average, but they do not prevent you from making an excellant game. You can build a palace with a simple hammer.

The good ones are worth a reasonable amount. They will not automatically make an excellant game, or even any game. But the good tools certainly do help alleviate some of the hassles and annoyances of development.

Now a " reasonable amount " is pretty relative.

But one thing to note. " Next gen " costs are not due to the cost of an engine, SpeedTree, Maya, animation middleware and whatever software you purchase. These costs are relatively fixed and can be spread over a number of projects and time. Unreal 3, for example, will remain ( with enhancements )competitive circa 2012. Or at least Epic believes so

The Quake Engine was never 5 thousand USD. Likewise with NetImmerse / Gamebryo , Serious Engine and most other game engines. Yet that did not prevent game innovation or inflate development budgets to painful limits.

Rising costs are mostly the cost of labor. Of assembling a team of artists, writers, programmers, and the top-heavy management practices of today ( i.e. expensive rent like Konami ). Oh and marketing, cost rivals that of development itself.

And that brings us back to the idea of " good tools ". Good tools are important and well worth the cost simply because they save other costs of development.

As for whether 750 thousand USD is tooo high. Well it certainly is for me. But nothing prevents me from assembling my very own toolset to rival Unreal 3 or any other engine.

Maybe that's what the 3DGS community should do ?