Quantcast
High Voltage CEO mocks notion of selling less than a million is a flop.

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - High Voltage CEO mocks notion of selling less than a million is a flop.

Viper1 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Viper1 said:

Good to hear Eric state what most of us already knew to be true.


This also relates to the lack of budget disclosure. Movie budgets are usually public, so it's easy to see such things. Video game companies seem to want to make games like movies, save for being more public about how games are made and for how much.

The movie industry is so much more mature as a business.  The video game industry may one day get their but it's not looking like it wants to move in that direction any time soon.

 

darkknightkryta said:

I'm still a bit curious on how a game can cost more than 20 million to make.  I mean Uncharted 2 (Atleast the first game anyways) had a 20 million dollar budget.  Yet God of War 3 had a 55 million dollar budget.  What did they do in God of War that cost them 30 million more? (Note God of War games have always had 50 million plus budgets.)


Simple math formula can show you.   Game X has 100 people working on it.  The average salary of those 100 people is $75,000 (this was as of 2010) and they work on the game for 4 years.   100 x $75,000 = $7.5 million.  $7.5 million x 4 years = $30 million.

Now that is incredibly broad and doesn't even touch in minor factors that can increase or decrease this cost but it should give you a better idea how one game can cost so much more to develop than another game.  


Unfortunately, your math is quite a bit off.  Average cost per employee wouldn't be anywhere near $75,000.  Even if the average salary is that, which seems awfully low for average salary, the fully loaded cost per employee is going be at least double that, so $150,000 per employee, which doubles your $30 MM.



Around the Network

I don't agree with this one bit. I think that games should be judged unto their own performance, and not relative to one another.

(I think I've got the topic for my next thread )



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

ramses01 said:


Unfortunately, your math is quite a bit off.  Average cost per employee wouldn't be anywhere near $75,000.  Even if the average salary is that, which seems awfully low for average salary, the fully loaded cost per employee is going be at least double that, so $150,000 per employee, which doubles your $30 MM.


Notice I stated is was a grossly broad calculation already.  And I sense that yours includes costs such as overhead, insurance, etc...which I alluded to in my post as well.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:
darkknightkryta said:
Viper1 said:

Simple math formula can show you.   Game X has 100 people working on it.  The average salary of those 100 people is $75,000 (this was as of 2010) and they work on the game for 4 years.   100 x $75,000 = $7.5 million.  $7.5 million x 4 years = $30 million.

Now that is incredibly broad and doesn't even touch in minor factors that can increase or decrease this cost but it should give you a better idea how one game can cost so much more to develop than another game.  

I had actually forgotten God of War's dev time was longer and accounts for the extra mony, but as your math showed, there's no reason for God of War 3 to have cost more than 40 million with its 4 year dev time (I'm guessing that that 4 years).  Yet it's bloated to 55 million, and they were under budget.

My example was just that...an example.  Unless you know the total years of development and average number of people that worked on it annually, you can't make any assumptions.  And as I said, it doesn't take into account things like fees for major script doctors, engine license fees, music licenses, studio overhead costs, etc....  And finally, many production 'budgets' also include the marketing budget.  

I have an idea of what the wages for people are and that range of 70k per person is about right and I've rarely seen a game with over 100 people making it (Some titles I've seen 200, as Ocarina of Time's case, others like Final Fantasy XIII had rumoured 300 people working on it at one point.  But rarely over 100).  And I hope marketing is included in those numbers cuase then it all makes sense.



Conegamer said:

I don't agree with this one bit. I think that games should be judged unto their own performance, and not relative to one another.

(I think I've got the topic for my next thread)


Um, how is that disagreeing? He didn't imply that games should be judged relative to one anoter. He just stated that games can make a profit without reaching a million.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network

It would be interesting to know the developing budgets of games along with marketing budget. Nice to see the entire number's story. 



LordTheNightKnight said:
Conegamer said:

I don't agree with this one bit. I think that games should be judged unto their own performance, and not relative to one another.

(I think I've got the topic for my next thread)


Um, how is that disagreeing? He didn't imply that games should be judged relative to one anoter. He just stated that games can make a profit without reaching a million.

I meant I don't agree with the idea that games need to reach a million, or, that Nosfinger is right

Should've been more clear really...



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Conegamer said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Conegamer said:

I don't agree with this one bit. I think that games should be judged unto their own performance, and not relative to one another.

(I think I've got the topic for my next thread)


Um, how is that disagreeing? He didn't imply that games should be judged relative to one anoter. He just stated that games can make a profit without reaching a million.

I meant I don't agree with the idea that games need to reach a million, or, that Nosfinger is right

Should've been more clear really...


Ah.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:
Conegamer said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Conegamer said:

I don't agree with this one bit. I think that games should be judged unto their own performance, and not relative to one another.

(I think I've got the topic for my next thread)


Um, how is that disagreeing? He didn't imply that games should be judged relative to one anoter. He just stated that games can make a profit without reaching a million.

I meant I don't agree with the idea that games need to reach a million, or, that Nosfinger is right

Should've been more clear really...


Ah.

Yeah, I realised it didn't make any sense when I read through it again, but, ah well. I know what I mean



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

I'm sure many indie game developers on the PC would like to have a word with him.