Squilliam said:
Why is it reasonable that MW2 cost a heck of a lot more than UC2?
Some points I think are important here!
1. The game probably has quite a large group of gameplay testers to religeously test the multiplayer aspect. They would have been testing and prototyping from day one. That's their choice though, Squil - they could just as readily have used a Beta like Uncharted 2. Plenty of people are willing to playtest for free, and even if they conducted it all internally playtesters are at the cheap end of the cost equation so far as I know. Three platforms for testing vs one and they would have to stress test all three constantly as multiplayer is the key focus of the game. 3 groups of 18 testers + 4 spare = 60 people potentially testing the game. Even at a low wage the cost of everything for 60 people? could add up quickly.
2. The game is programmed for 2 seperate console platforms and ported to the PC platform. That should only add around 10% max according to most big developers. Given CoD4 was already multi-platform I'd argue it should have been even less than 10% for MW2. Even assuming a worst case it should only have added 15% or so. But it is an additional cost so the point is fair, I just don't see evidence it should be that high. 10% is the estimated cost to port a game. The cost to code it seperately will definately be higher. this changes up the ratio mix between programmers and artists and programmers get paid much more.
3. IW staff probably get paid more than other companies as they are a proved commodity. Activision doesn't want the whole group of them to up and leave to go work for EA do they? Again, that's their choice. I guess its possible, although I'd expect any bigger rewards to be driven through bonuses, etc. rather than direct salary. It's a good point though, and I wonder how much the high cost was down to staff costs. It is their choice, but remember the level of bonuses paid to keep the main design team on board would have to be considerable. John Carmack recently traded a Ferari in for a Tesla roadster and you know how Cliffy B likes to pick up boys in his exotic sports car.
4. They use a lot of set pieces. I wonder how much work it took to make it and how much they had to throw away in the end? They probably had no compunction leaving whole segments of the game on the cutting room floor. I don't but this one, as Uncharted 2 and other games have had more set pieces than MW2, and arguably bigger ones too. TBH the SP campaign is too short for me to buy they spent a lot more adding set pieces, or threw that much away. Even if they threw away half they'd still only have developed a 10 hour game, shorter than many similar games. You're right.
In the end the figure just seems high. Uncharted cost $30 Million I believe, and obviously required a new engine, etc. from scratch. Uncharted 2 cost around $30 million too, but its clear that with the engine already there the cost of the SP must have gone down a lot and the effort to add MP/Coop took the cost back up to $30 million.
With MW2 nothing that big has been added, the engine was there, etc. so the cost just seems high. I mean, it's lower than say Killzone 2, which I'd argue cost too much but I guess did deliver an amazing engine built from scratch, and even if MW2 cost $100 million it would still be very profitable.
In fact, I think you're on the right track with point 3. Everyone at IW and Activision knew this was going to be massive, and I think that resulted (as it often does in any business) in a losser control of costs and effort. For the game $40 million is too high if it was developed with very tight budget and cost control - but loosen the reins a little, and I can then see costs creeping to around $40 million.
|
Remember back way back with the release of GTA IV? The fact that Take 2 still posted a loss and the fact that R* had a budget of over $100M as well.
