Quantcast
Wii game budgets 1/4 of HD budgets according to EA

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii game budgets 1/4 of HD budgets according to EA

Groucho said:
averyblund said:
theRepublic said:
Let's look at it in an apples to apples comparison:

Killzone 2 is an exclusive FPS for the PS3. It is designed to push the console to its graphical limits as much as possible. Its development costs are rumored to be $60 million.

The Conduit is an exclusive FPS for the Wii. It is designed to push the console to its graphical limits as much as possible. I can't find anything on its development costs. Does anyone think it even comes close to $60 million?

 

8 million tops, I would bet more like 3-4. SMG was being developed for years by some of the top programmers in the world and only cost 15 or so.

3-4M for the Conduit?  You realize that 100K/employee/year is the standard, right?  15-20 employees for 2 years then on the Conduit?  And of course they get their motion capture, etc. for free, right?  Mocap studios love giving time for free.

Lets use GTA4 again as an example, while we're at it.  Most of that $100M... voice acting, actor mocap, licensing.  If you can't deduce it on your own, those expenses have nothing to do with platform-specific development, per se, and everything to do with ambition.  GTA4 on the Wii probably would have cost $85-90M, at the least, given the same grade of resources.

Production value == cost.  It has nothing to do with platform, and everything to do with project ambition.   That's the last time I'll say it.

 

 

Yeah and SMG was in development for at least 4 years (really more like 8) with a massive team and one of the most famous (expensive)  individual developers in the world. And it cost 15 mill or so. Do you really think I am stupid enough to think that The Conduit, a game that didn't even have a publisher for a year, with a team a fraction of the size, and half the development time (or less)  cost half that much? Seriously man?



XBL: WiiVault Wii: PM me  PSN: WiiVault

PC: AMD Athlon II Quadcore 635 (OC to 4.0ghz) , ATI Radeon 5770 1GB (x2)

MacBook Pro C2D 2.8ghz, 9600m GT 512 iMac: C2D 2.0, X2600XT 256

 

Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Groucho said:

^^ Dear lord. 100K/year. Dev cost. That includes taxes, administration, building costs, equipment, licenses...

Are you guys honestly clueless enough to think that each employee gets paid 100K per year in salary, and that's all that dev costs account for?

No.... that's what you said.

We thought you were rightly being stupid.

 

 

100K/employee/year is the standard for dev cost calculations.  That's what I said.  You should read before jumping to foolish conclusions.

 



Groucho said:
Kasz216 said:
Groucho said:

^^ Dear lord. 100K/year. Dev cost. That includes taxes, administration, building costs, equipment, licenses...

Are you guys honestly clueless enough to think that each employee gets paid 100K per year in salary, and that's all that dev costs account for?

No.... that's what you said.

We thought you were rightly being stupid.

 

 

100K/employee/year is the standard for dev cost calculations.  That's what I said.  You should read before jumping to foolish conclusions.

 

No you said 100K/Employee/A year is standard.

100k Per employee per Year.

If you meant something else you phrased it poorly.

More likely you meant that and are now trying to back your way out of it... like you've been doing the entire thread.

 



@Groucho what was the per developer cost from say 5 years ago in the middle of the PS2 generation? Im curious as to how the costs for the exact same projects may have scaled over time.

100K per developer is the figure I have seen on multiple occassions for U.S development from a couple of other developers on www.beyond3d.com/forum



Tease.

Ambition and raw cost are totally unrelated. What on earth does ambition have to do with cost?!?!

Some of the most ambitious projects are created on shoestring budgets. They are ambitious because that shoestring is someone's entire life savings. Some indie film maker pouring every cent they own into a project, has far more ambition than some bigwig choosing which scripts deserve $50 million and which deserve $100 million.

Ambition is taking a higher risk, for the potential of a higher reward. The Blair Witch Project was more ambitious than Hancock.

Basing an entire game on a student contest winner like De Blob, is far more ambitious than a follow-the-leader project like Kane and Lynch or Saint's Row, which probably had higher budgets, especially for advertising.

In reality, investment is proportionate to expected return. Publishers make an investment expecting a certain rate of return. If the expected return goes up, they'll make a higher investment. If it goes down, they'll cut corners. To the extent that actual return is a function of the size of the investment, this creates self-fulfilling prophesies. But if everything had returns proportionate to the investment, there would be no "flops" or "break-out hits."

I do think that Groucho is right to an extent, that EA is probably talking not just about lower art asset costs, but different types of projects.

However, the ability for different types of projects to succeed on Wii is not a negative.

Games like Dead Space, Sonic and the Black Knight and Monster Hunter 3 are all coming to Wii at least partly because of lower dev costs.

According to VGC numbers, Sonic Unleashed has sold more on PS360 combined, but only Wii ever gets exclusive Sonic games. That's because if your expected dollar sales are the same regardless of platform, Wii costs less.

And console developers are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to having a break-out hit on the HD systems. Traditional PC devs, like Valve, Bethesda and Epic, have established practices for turning profits making huge-scale games on a high-piracy platform. With low piracy on home consoles, they take in huge margins, and additional investments increase the quality of the game beyond what traditional console developers are yet able to produce.

So Wii's advantages are really two-fold. For a similar type of game, Wii's cost may not be just 1/3rd of an HD game. However, there is a higher potential for a "break-out hit" with a traditional console game instead of a traditional PC game.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.

Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Groucho said:
Kasz216 said:
Groucho said:

^^ Dear lord. 100K/year. Dev cost. That includes taxes, administration, building costs, equipment, licenses...

Are you guys honestly clueless enough to think that each employee gets paid 100K per year in salary, and that's all that dev costs account for?

No.... that's what you said.

We thought you were rightly being stupid.

 

 

100K/employee/year is the standard for dev cost calculations.  That's what I said.  You should read before jumping to foolish conclusions.

 

No you said 100K/Employee/A year is standard.

100k Per employee per Year.

If you meant something else you phrased it poorly.

More likely you meant that and are now trying to back your way out of it... like you've been doing the entire thread.

 

Or you could say people made an incorrect assumption?

 



Tease.

Squilliam said:
Kasz216 said:
Groucho said:
Kasz216 said:
Groucho said:

^^ Dear lord. 100K/year. Dev cost. That includes taxes, administration, building costs, equipment, licenses...

Are you guys honestly clueless enough to think that each employee gets paid 100K per year in salary, and that's all that dev costs account for?

No.... that's what you said.

We thought you were rightly being stupid.

 

 

100K/employee/year is the standard for dev cost calculations.  That's what I said.  You should read before jumping to foolish conclusions.

 

No you said 100K/Employee/A year is standard.

100k Per employee per Year.

If you meant something else you phrased it poorly.

More likely you meant that and are now trying to back your way out of it... like you've been doing the entire thread.

 

Or you could say people made an incorrect assumption?

 

Not at all.  If the intent isn't what was meant and most people got it wrong, the fault lies in the writing.

 If that is what he would of meant.  There would of been a good way to phrase it, rather then to say 100K per developer per year.

 



Kasz216 said:
Squilliam said:

Or you could say people made an incorrect assumption?

 

Not at all.  If the intent isn't what was meant and most people got it wrong, the fault lies in the writing.

 If that is what he would of meant.  There would of been a good way to phrase it, rather then to say 100K per developer per year.

 

Thats not always the case, Hitler said exactly what he intended to do in his book. So the fault in that case was in the reading.

"100k per developer per year." Thats pretty much straight forward if you read it exactly as is said. 100k per developer... Since this is a games sales site, a degree of industry knowledge is expected from readers and if they aren't up with the play then they probably shouldn't be posting in a thread about game budgets now should they?

 



Tease.

Squilliam said:
Kasz216 said:
Squilliam said:

Or you could say people made an incorrect assumption?

 

Not at all.  If the intent isn't what was meant and most people got it wrong, the fault lies in the writing.

 If that is what he would of meant.  There would of been a good way to phrase it, rather then to say 100K per developer per year.

 

Thats not always the case, Hitler said exactly what he intended to do in his book. So the fault in that case was in the reading.

"100k per developer per year." Thats pretty much straight forward if you read it exactly as is said. 100k per developer... Since this is a games sales site, a degree of industry knowledge is expected from readers and if they aren't up with the play then they probably shouldn't be posting in a thread about game budgets now should they?

 

I once again think your clearly off base here.  100K per developer per year is very straightfoward in that it is 100K for a developer for a year.

The Hitler point i'm not quite sure what your saying.

He said nothing about budgets or calculations.

Simple 100k for a developer for a year.

 



HappySqurriel said:
jammy2211 said:
Are people seriously saying that ambition has no correlation to costs?

To draw up a quick comparison, take a game like Burnout Paradise. It has a vast, open racing world. Furthermore it has seamless online intergration that can be accessed without any hassle at the click of a button, great physics etc. It's clearly a cut above most of what EA have procuded on the Wii. Then you look at stuff like Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Battlefield: Bad Company, with voice acting, open worlds, just ambition in general. When you're trying to make a game like this, it's going to cost more, of course it is.

IT's no surprise to me that a game like Boom Blox or EA Party of MySims or NERF-Strike cost a third of the price to produce, aside from graphics there's still alot of things they're doing to cut costs.

I'm by no means saying that HD assets and graphics arn't upping the costs, but when you're comparing Boom Blox and NERF-Strike to Dead Space and Burnout Paradise, no matter what system you put them on the latter are going to cost more.

How "ambitious" a game is, is directly related to how much a game costs and you could consider the visual improvement that goes along with HD game development to be an increase in "ambition" of the project ...

Basically, suppose that MySims cost $2 to $4 Million to develop for the Wii. To take full advantage of the graphical capabilities of the HD consoles and produce a similar game would (probably) boost the cost of development to somewhere between $6 and $12 Million. At the same time a more "Ambitious" game like Grand Theft Auto built from the ground up for the Wii would probably cost $10 to $20 Million to develop, and similar projects on the HD consoles are hitting $40 to (over) $100 Million to develop.

 

 And where did you pull those 'figures' from, a legitimate and reliable source? OR your arse?

 All I'm saying is even if you ignore the additional cost of graphics, and just look at what the games is trying to acheive from a gameplay / scope stand-point, you'd expect it to cost more. At the end of the day, creating a game where you throw a ball at some blocks doesn't cost as much as a huge open world racing sim with seamlessly intergrated online. Ignore graphics and you'd still be looking at more costs.

 Most Wii games, 'average' Wii games, are cheap because they're cheap games. Sure enough if they tried to make a GTA or MGS on the Wii it'd still cost less then HD consoles, but one third the cost? I doubt it.