By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
makingmusic476 on 10 November 2008
Edit Thread
mrstickball said:
makingmusic476 said:

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.

So how do you argue the cost of an engine that's been used in dozens of other games? UE3 wasn't made for Gears. Gears was made for UE3. Guerrilla Games and Konami could of used other engines, but didn't either due to the fact the PS3 wasn't going to work well with it, or decided to use it to make the 'best' game.

Again, is that Epics fault for the cheap budget, or theirs? If you want, feel free to add $1m to the budget of both Gears' games since that's what it costs to license the engine.

 

 

I'm not saying you should add anything to the cost of Gears' budget.  I'm just saying it's an unfair comparison, as Gears of War started development on a just about completed engine, while Kojima Productions and Geurrilla Games were building their first ps3 engines from scratch through the development of MGS4 and Killzone 2.