By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
twesterm on 10 November 2008
Edit Thread
dbot said:
twesterm said:
dbot said:
twesterm said:

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

 

I would rather figure it with facts.  Do you have any?

 

I'm not the one who posted it first so I really don't care.  As I said, I use common sense to figure it out so no need to look for the articles. 

Both games have reasonbly large teams but one game took more time than the others to finish.  Both games are very high on quality, quality takes time and money.  Longer time spent means more money spent.

What's the Tommy Boy quote?

I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it.

 

I don't really want to go back and forth on this issue with you.  I understand that you feel that the total development costs of Gears 1 and Gears 2 were less than MGS4 OR Killzone 2 because the length of time each game has been in development. But you can't really use that as a yardstick without an understanding of the burn rate for each team per game.  A "common sense" example would be LBP.  Its development team maxed out at 30 people, and the game took 2 years to complete.  Do you think LBP cost as much as Gears of War 2 since they both took 2 years to complete.

The reason I asked for a link was it the original statement was presented as fact, when in reality it was an opinion.

 

 

 

Lets look at some of the things we know about these four games:

LBP

  • Big budget game
  • small team
  • About 3 years dev time (I think, don't quote me on that one)

Gears of War 1

  • Big budget game
  • large team
  • About 3 years dev time

Gears of War 2

  • Big budget game
  • large team
  • About 2 years dev time

Metal Gear Solid 4

  • Big budget game
  • large team
  • About 4 years at least dev time

So looking at those things, we have team size and time.  The large the team size, the more money you spend.  The more time you spend, the more money you spend.  The larger your team size, the more money you spend (and you don't save a lot of time).  All of those are not opinions, those are absolute fact.

Now, assuming my general team size and time spent we can make very good guesses which games cost more than the others.  I would put them in about this order from least amount spent to most spent.

  1. LBP
  2. Gears of War 2
  3. Gears of War
  4. Metal Gear Solid 4

Looking at simple known things, it's simple to figure out what games should cost more.  True, I don't know exactly how much they cost but I would be willing to bet that the order listed there is about right. There is no opinion in that, just using known information.

The only one I'm not sure about is LBP and that's only because I don't know much about the development time.

-edit-

And you can ask for links to analysts but they do the same thing I just did but throw in numbers as well.