Do these costs take into consideration licensing an existing game engine instead of building one from scratch? What about companies reusing or tweaking existing code, tools, engine, etc that were created for previous games they've made? Are we expected to believe companies re-invent the wheel everytime they made a new develop on a console they've already developed a game on?
What about development kits, didn't Sony just cut in half the cost of their's (from ~$20,000 each to ~$10,000) and that's not even taking into consideration the fact that many teams are on their second or third PS3 or 360 game and that cost has already been paid for with their first game.
Lets take Rainbow Six Vegas 2 for example, it's doubtful the team bought all new development kits for the game or threw out all the code from the first (AI, Physics, Art, etc). Or that they forgot everything they learned from the first game so they have to spend time re-learning everything. I'm willing to bet the cost of making Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is less than the first game.
I see $20+ million numbers being thrown around a lot but it seems a lot of games with those kinds of costs are ones in which the engine and everything else for them are being built from scratch or a lot of customization of an existing licensed engine is taking place. In one camp there're games like Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Grand Theft Auto 4 in which everything is being built from the ground up. In another there're games like Bioshock, Stranglehold, and Too Human in which an existing engine is heavily modified. But in both cases I'm willing to bet for the ones that get a sequel it will cost less and take less time to make.
Anyways what I'm trying to say it that this issue isn't as black and white as some people are making it out to be.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
