| Esa-Petteri said: @noname2000
|
Nooooo....
Let's have another look at that chart, shall we?
Do you, by chance, happen to notice that after "Gamecube" but before "Actual AAA Next-Gen" there are two other, sizable bars? I'm curious, did you just think those were there for decoration? Or are you reckoning that developers don't have to lay the groundwork for their games? Those two bars are also part of the cost of making a AAA Next-Gen title. Think back to what you yourself have posted:
"According to THQ Chief Executive Brian Farrell, while an investment in an Xbox 360 or PS3 game might be in the range of $12 million to $20 million on average..."
Let's put the pieces together now. Either THQ is spending more money on their average (non-AAA) titles than other developers are spending on their AAA's...or you're deliberately misreading the chart. I'll admit to being satisfied with either explanation, actually, since they both go against what you claim.
AAA HD games cost much, much more than the average HD game. Next point, please.
How much does AAA-title cost for wii. I remember reading that SMG cost 16 million. I don't know where did I read that. But if that is the budget, there is no big difference?
But too human and 70 million. Please show me a link that says Too human costs were that much for 360. I guess you can't find one, so you have to rely on "common knowledge" as in fanboy guesses on interwebz.
Mmmmm...
Hypocrisy is delicious.
I see that your link was something about "mushroom men" developed by "Red fly studio". I mentioned following games:
NMH
Boom blox
Little king's story
Which of them is developed by "Red Fly Studio"? If your answer is none, you did not have any point.
You have my most sincere apologies. I didn't know you had been given the ability to exclude points of data that contradict you. That's a handy super-power!
A quick reminder: the relevant sentence that you wrote is "Games like nhm,boom blox or little king's story would not cost any more to develop on ps3/360 than on wii."
I went and underlined the word that's making me laugh at you now. I'm sure you can see why it's relevant. If not, I'd be happy to give you some brief English lessons. No problem, really.
From THQ:
360 list shows 16 titles with sales, 3 or 4 of them is shovelware.
Wii list shows 18 titles, at least 10 of them is shovelware.
I'll admit to my error here. I mispoke. "Shovelware" has a very precise definition. "Crappy games" has another. Mind you, both of them are usually the result of a lack of effort on the part of the developer, although you can have the occasional expensive turd too. And since in your book "effort" means "money spent"...
You're setting up a difference without much distinction.
Midway? Are you serious?
Every single one wii game with sales listed is shovelware. Do you consider unreal tournament, stranglehold or blacksite: are 51 to be shovelware? If so, I would like to hear your definition of shovelware.
Again, I used "shovelware" when I should have said "crappy game." See above.
And to answer your question directly, Unreal Tournament gets a pass. The other two you listed, along with stuff like Blitz: The League II and The Wheelman, and the rest of their lineup, are indeed, crappy games. Although the latest Mortal Kombat is supposed to be decent, for what it's worth. (Not much)
Keep in mind that I was talking about average dev costs. Shovelware/quality title ratio affect that alot, don't you think?
So they do, my friend, so they do.
Of course, the publishers you named still do far more of the former than the latter...
Now for your last "point".
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/?biz=1
"When you talk about the PS3 and the Xbox 360, ramp-up costs are significant. You don't have the same ramp-up costs on the Wii because you have the tools already,"
How do wii development costs become cheaper if they already had the tools for it? Magically?
You reckon there's just a one-time decrease in development costs, mate? Granted the Wii stuff won't go down as dramatically, but the Wii isn't actually a Gamecube, ya know? There's plenty of new stuff under the hood, mate.
As a fun game, can you name at least one blatantly obvious development tool that's new for the Wii? Go on, guess!
For Ps3/360, if they did not have "teh tools" then but now they do. How that does not make developing cheaper?
For the part about middleware, doesn't that also make developing cheaper? You just have to pay royalties (i think) to those middleware companies. Less risk, I guess?
The point.
>
>
>
>
>
You.
Read what I wrote again. It does make development cheaper than it would be. It's also a requirement this generation, where once it was something fewer developers had to do. And remember that liscensing an engine isn't going to get that much cheaper over time, either. And things are still expensive. And yes, it's "less" risk. But it's still a "lot" of risk.
http://www.edge-online.com/features/edges-top-20-publishers-2008
Actually, if you use that chart as evidence that the most companies are bleeding money you should take a look. 11 companies listed are making profits and 9 of them are losing money. That is not the most! Of course, you COULD also see that microsoft and sony are listed there. I bet those figures include losses of the hardwar too. For 360, wasn't 07 the year when they paid 1 billion dollars for the extended warranty? Oh, I think that few months after that Take 2 had a little different figures. Due to one expensive hd-game.
Does any of those companies develop who made losses develop for wii too? If so, I guess you proved that it is not profitable to develop for wii?
....you do realize that these are just the Top Twenty, right? It's important that you recognize that, as the ability to read is important to our continuing this discussion.
As to your last sentence, would you care to assess which companies are more invested in HD? And where said companies lie, in terms of the profit line? Don't say "Ubisoft", by the by. It wouldn't be smart. You can say Activision, and be mostly correct, assuming you ignore Blizzard's role in that number, but then you have one publisher that's profiting off HD, and several more who generally aren't. Is...is that your idea of a healthy marketplace?
