psrock said:
The_vagabond7 said:
NJ5 said:
Procrastinato said:
The "because of HD graphics" is pretty vague statement. Gears 2 cost $10M to develop. Lots of people claim it has some of the X360's best graphics.
Almost every Wii game in existance probably derived from a pre-existing GameCube engine, since the architectures are next to identical, outside of clock -- so how did Gears 2 get so cheap, when its not HD?
Which HD games were on their first HD engine architecture iteration, when you choose to quote their costs?
|
Gears is the exception... Engine costs = zero (it was already developed and no licensing involved), and it was partly outsourced to Epic China.
|
See, now there is legitimate solution to the problems that third parties face. Develop your own engine that is flexible enough to be used in future games, avoid expensive liscensing fees, outsource work when possible. 3rd parties should be looking to people like Epic that can make a high quality, high tech game with lots of features for 10 million dollars. They are doing something right. Simply saying "well they should stop making onrails shooters for wii, and make a good wii game, they don't understand the market" is not a constructive critique of the situation.
|
Most HD games are going to be cheaper the second time around.
I doubt Killzone 3 will cost 60 million dollars since they already have the engine.
MWF2 probably was not very expensive to do compared to COD4
Uncharted 2 was cheap for the way it looks.
|
Activision reported MW2 cost about $50 million. So unless MW1 cost even more than that, HD development can still go up. This is from the need to top the last game, which has been a thing in gaming for a while. It's rare for a sequel on the same system to cost less if the previous game was a hit.
Essay Pro