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.
|
Damn, I was wrong about Gears 2 costing less than Gears 1. Guess it makes sense since one was a new IP and the other was a sequel to a huge hit. >_<