Kwaad dude you gotta be kidding me! You think that the developers for PS3 or the Xbox360 have so much top end headroom to move that they can just chuck together a good looking game WITHOUT optimising the textures and the graphics? ARE YOU SERIOUS?? You have a good understanding of technology and high definition and photography yet your comments above about the development of Motorstorm. Motorstorm took TWO YEARS to build, that is MASSIVE for a game of that calibre, no ifs no butts it's a pretty simple racing game with. You're completely crazy if you think that developers on 360 and PS3 don't optimize things. The Gears of War number is distorted as well, yes it cost $10million AFTER the cost of the development of the Unreal Tournament 3 engine which cost MASSIVE dosh. "We spent less than $10 million to make Gears of War. Somewhere between nine and ten million dollars," Rein says. "People are always saying that making next-generation games is really expensive, and we're saying, you should license our technology." That quote about it costing 10 million is all about self promoting the Epic Engine, which is what they made Gears of War from, the 10 million doesn't include the cost of the development of that engine, because that can be accounted for by other sources leasing the engine and that is wasn't 'directly' part of the Gears of War development cost. Sorry but $10million is for PURE development only. Why do you think so many developers are leasing the UT3 engine (even SquareEnix) because this will help them pump out games with Gears level graphics without having to invest so much time into them. Definately a good thing, but the lease cost, plus devunit cost plus game development cost is still going to be higher than on Wii. And dude... seriously, how can you compare the dev cost of Gears vs Red Steel, two games ONLY similar in that they are shooters... it's stupid to compare those games... it's like comparing apples with oranges... actually scratch that it's more like comparing apples with banana's.
