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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are wii development costs really cheaper?

outlawauron on 13 April 2009
famousringo said:
Pristine20 said:

@famousringo

Also, many people seem to think every third party would be better served by switching to wii but I like how you only considered "small, independent devs" because market saturation would be a result of everyone jumping into the fray. Even the ps2's userbase could only manage 200 mil sellers because newcomers usually buy the known good games before taking gambles. Thus newcomers, would still have to consider SMG, MKwii, Zelda, SSBB, wii fit, etc before considering your entry. As saturation and established IPs increase, prospects decrease. So even if the 4 game strategy was possible, it may not look god at that stage.

My rant basically boils down to this: wii isn't the answer many people think. The gaming industry may just have to downsize to restore profitability.

I agree completely. Like I said to your post in the Id thread, diversification is really the way to go.  Big publishers need to spread their projects out and they need to make some spending cuts. Small publishers need to leave HD development to the big guys who can afford to bet big while they work on Wii games, handheld games, and downloadable games.

The big HD project versus four Wii projects comparison is a little extreme. A more representative plan would be switching from two HD projects to one HD project, one Wii project, a few downloadable and handheld projects and some staff cuts.

I don't think that the Wii should monopolize development budgets, but I do think that HD has been over-represented in budgets, Wii has been under-represented, and the budgets themselves have been larger than they should be.

Are you saying here at the end that Wii budgets need to be lower?



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Esa-Petteri on 13 April 2009
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

How about some other games to compare? Gears of war had something like 10 million dollar development costs and the conduit costs the same. Red steel was more expensive than GoW. Since GoW is graphically impressive, we will have to assume that most of good looking hd games cost roughly the same as good looking wii games.

 

 

Before someone says something stupid, how much do you people think that licensing UT3-engine costs? 10-40 millions? ;)

 



saicho on 13 April 2009
Esa-Petteri said:
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

How about some other games to compare? Gears of war had something like 10 million dollar development costs and the conduit costs the same. Red steel was more expensive than GoW. Since GoW is graphically impressive, we will have to assume that most of good looking hd games cost roughly the same as good looking wii games.

 

 

Before someone says something stupid, how much do you people think that licensing UT3-engine costs? 10-40 millions? ;)

 

I don't know how much licensing Unreal 3 engine costs. However, do you have other example with a game built from its own engine?

 



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

NinjaKido on 13 April 2009
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

 

The Wii's architecture is much older and much better understood than the PS3's architecture , that kind of comparison is obviously going to favour the Wii. Your also forgetting to factor in the fact that Killzone 2 is alot fleshier in terms of it's features , online mode , probably has a longer campaign etc.



blackstar on 13 April 2009
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

the gap alone between 30 and 60 ALONE makes the estimation looks bad and wrong.

again , no solid info just estimation based on nearly nothing.

the same goes for the conduit , it may be less or more, who really knows?



Around the Network
blackstar on 13 April 2009
Esa-Petteri said:
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

How about some other games to compare? Gears of war had something like 10 million dollar development costs and the conduit costs the same. Red steel was more expensive than GoW. Since GoW is graphically impressive, we will have to assume that most of good looking hd games cost roughly the same as good looking wii games.

 

 

Before someone says something stupid, how much do you people think that licensing UT3-engine costs? 10-40 millions? ;)

 

oh lord help us

how did u know ? can u provide a link plz?

 



Esa-Petteri on 13 April 2009
blackstar said:
Esa-Petteri said:
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

How about some other games to compare? Gears of war had something like 10 million dollar development costs and the conduit costs the same. Red steel was more expensive than GoW. Since GoW is graphically impressive, we will have to assume that most of good looking hd games cost roughly the same as good looking wii games.

 

 

Before someone says something stupid, how much do you people think that licensing UT3-engine costs? 10-40 millions? ;)

 

oh lord help us

how did u know ? can u provide a link plz?

 

Sure thing mate.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=gears+of+war+development+cost&btnG=Hae&meta=

 



famousringo on 13 April 2009
outlawauron said:
famousringo said:

I agree completely. Like I said to your post in the Id thread, diversification is really the way to go.  Big publishers need to spread their projects out and they need to make some spending cuts. Small publishers need to leave HD development to the big guys who can afford to bet big while they work on Wii games, handheld games, and downloadable games.

The big HD project versus four Wii projects comparison is a little extreme. A more representative plan would be switching from two HD projects to one HD project, one Wii project, a few downloadable and handheld projects and some staff cuts.

I don't think that the Wii should monopolize development budgets, but I do think that HD has been over-represented in budgets, Wii has been under-represented, and the budgets themselves have been larger than they should be.

Are you saying here at the end that Wii budgets need to be lower?

No, that would contradict the part right before where I say they need to spend more on Wii development.

I'm saying that as a whole, publishers are spending more money on game development and promotion than they should. Too many of them are losing too much money, and despite steady, strong growth in the gaming market, it's obvious that their budgets have balooned faster than their revenues. They need to either cut, or at least freeze how much they spend until the revenues catch up.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

outlawauron on 13 April 2009
famousringo said:
outlawauron said:
famousringo said:

I agree completely. Like I said to your post in the Id thread, diversification is really the way to go.  Big publishers need to spread their projects out and they need to make some spending cuts. Small publishers need to leave HD development to the big guys who can afford to bet big while they work on Wii games, handheld games, and downloadable games.

The big HD project versus four Wii projects comparison is a little extreme. A more representative plan would be switching from two HD projects to one HD project, one Wii project, a few downloadable and handheld projects and some staff cuts.

I don't think that the Wii should monopolize development budgets, but I do think that HD has been over-represented in budgets, Wii has been under-represented, and the budgets themselves have been larger than they should be.

Are you saying here at the end that Wii budgets need to be lower?

No, that would contradict the part right before where I say they need to spend more on Wii development.

I'm saying that as a whole, publishers are spending more money on game development and promotion than they should. Too many of them are losing too much money, and despite steady, strong growth in the gaming market, it's obvious that their budgets have balooned faster than their revenues. They need to either cut, or at least freeze how much they spend until the revenues catch up.

Spending more on Wii development could translate to just more low budget Wii games.

I agree that third parties (and Nintendo) need to put more effort and $ into their Wii products.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

blackstar on 13 April 2009
Esa-Petteri said:
blackstar said:
Esa-Petteri said:
theRepublic said:
How about comparing similar games? The Conduit and Killzone 2 are both exclusive FPS that are supposed to push the limits of their respective consoles. Development costs on Killzone 2 has been estimated to be between 30 and 60 million dollars. The Conduit has been estimated at 10 million.

How about some other games to compare? Gears of war had something like 10 million dollar development costs and the conduit costs the same. Red steel was more expensive than GoW. Since GoW is graphically impressive, we will have to assume that most of good looking hd games cost roughly the same as good looking wii games.

 

 

Before someone says something stupid, how much do you people think that licensing UT3-engine costs? 10-40 millions? ;)

 

oh lord help us

how did u know ? can u provide a link plz?

 

Sure thing mate.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=gears+of+war+development+cost&btnG=Hae&meta=

 

ok sorry for being an idiot mate , it's just that everyone is tossing numbers with nothing to back them up.

and btw this is good news, if 10 million $ can turn into a game like GeOW then other games should be cheaper or at least around 10 million but in the end I don't really know xD