By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Davey1983 on 20 February 2010
Edit Thread
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Cost of changing dev. studios to develop HD games was way too much to go back on (Capcom have said this)"

I believe this is called the sunk cost fallacy (correct me if that's not the right term). It's an actual phenomenon where it would be more reasonable to stop doing something you spent money on, but since you spent the money, you can't stop spending it and you hope you get your money back.

Besides, it's not as though changing the studios to make games for the Wii AS WELL would be a hell of a lot more.

Pretty much right.  Sunk cost are expenses you have already incurred.  The fallacy comes in when people/businesses say that they have spent too much money not to continue on when a better alternative presents itself.

For example, I buy tickets to a concert, and those tickets cost $100.  I loose the tickets.  Do I buy more tickets?  Most people would say that you should only buy the tickets again if you think the cocert is worth $200.  That is wrong.  The $100 is gone no matter what you do and thus a 'sunk cost' which should have no barring on your decision.  So the question should be 'is the concert worth spending $100 on'.  

If capcom actually said that they have spent to much money to stop in the direction they have gone in, then the stock holders or the board of directors need to step in and fire those managers and put in people who understand concepts such as sunk costs. 

If capcom said that the money they have spent on HD development means that future HD development would be more profitable than switching to SD, then that would make more sense and Capcom should continue in that direction (even if the decision to develop HD assets was the wrong decision in the past, those are the sunk costs and should not be considered in the decision).