By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Game budgets

Roronaa_chan on 28 October 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

I don't even know how accurate this is (some of it seems legit with good sources, some a bit miffy)

Were you surprised by anything when scrolling through this? Some things that surprised me: Halo MMO cancelled after 90M, FFVII costing 145M (214M adjusted to inflation) [that's way more than FFXIII!], and in general some games being more expensive than i ever imagined, like Deadpool, Enter the Matrix and Defiance.  MS has 5 games (only 3 came to fruition) here, Sony has 2 (FFVII doesn't count), Nintendo has 1.



Around the Network
pokoko on 28 October 2016

World of Warcraft being 42 is kind of funny.



Nautilus on 28 October 2016

Most of these costs come from marketing, which puts into perspective the argument that game development is expensive.I mean, it is, but much of the cost is flat out excessive marketing.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

vivster on 28 October 2016

Look at the development cost and not the total cost. It doesn't matter what kind of budget publishers allocate to other stuff. That's where you see that FFVII didn't really cost more to make than FFXIII.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Roronaa_chan on 28 October 2016
vivster said:
Look at the development cost and not the total cost. It doesn't matter what kind of budget publishers allocate to other stuff. That's where you see that FFVII didn't really cost more to make than FFXIII.

Barely. FFVII is 66.5M when adjusted to inflation, FFXIII is 72M



Around the Network
Intrinsic on 28 October 2016

I dont know, lists like those doesnt really paint the whole picture.

Take MGS5 and GT5 for instance? Both games would also have released a playable snippet of sorts, kinda like a glorified demo. So MGS5 basically used ground zeroes to pay for the development of the full game or at least most of it.

And a lot of those games, anyone that had any kinda exclusivity deal (even if it was just marketing) would have got a lot of money from one platform holder or the other. You see a game being marketed and only one consoles name comes up, or bundles, timed exclusive DLC.....etc. that's all money coming in that offsets these development costs.



Conina on 28 October 2016

My game budget is around €100 per month. ;)



Alkibiádēs on 28 October 2016

Nintendo is the best gaming company when it comes to handling budgets for their games.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

vivster on 29 October 2016
Roronaa_chan said:
vivster said:
Look at the development cost and not the total cost. It doesn't matter what kind of budget publishers allocate to other stuff. That's where you see that FFVII didn't really cost more to make than FFXIII.

Barely. FFVII is 66.5M when adjusted to inflation, FFXIII is 72M

Not like this is a contest. FFVII was a huge game when it came out and so was FFXIII.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Chris Hu on 29 October 2016
Ka-pi96 said:
Don`t know how they spent $100m on Too Human. I enjoyed the game, but in no way did it feel like a $100m game.

Oh and kinda surprised that FF9 was cheaper to develop than 7, especially since I think 9 was much the better game.

Too Human was that expensive because it had numerous development cycles it started out as a PS1 game then a Gamecube game before it landed on the 360.