mrstickball said:
dbot said:
@Twestern - I agree with your last post.
I still do not agree with mrstrickball's statement that it cost less to develop both GeoW and GeoW2 than it did to develop either Killzone 2 or MGS4. I don't feel as though you can just use common sense to come to that conclusion. That being said, I think that mrstickball makes a good point that titles like Gears of War provide a much better return than MGS4 and presumably Killzone 2.
Any chance we can move along?
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways). |
Link it please.
|
You should
|
Gears of War 1 - $10,000,000
Gears of War 2 - $18,000,000 (trying to find validation for this claim)
Metal Gear Solid 4 - $50,000,000 (cited via multiple sources, including VGC)
Killzone 2 - $40,000,000-$60,000,000
Will update once I get the quote's I've seen for GeoW2 pinned down.
|
Like I said ealier in the thread, both the time and costs required to develop MGS4 and Killzone 2's engines are included in the numbers for their respective development cycles.
The development of UE3, however, is not included in the figures of Gears of War's development cycle.
