Jereel Hunter said:
It doesn't matter if it profitted - KZ3 was a tech demo, first and foremost.
it was KZ2
If the game was about making money, it would have had options like split screen - but the game was put out to show what the PS3 could do.
NOT NECESSARILY as it depends what the dev wants to do with it
Exactly. As I said, what the dev wanted to do with it, was showcase the PS3. If they wanted to... Sell more copies, they'd have had a splitscreen option.
and anyone who thinks the game was made for $30-$40m has not done any research into the effort that went into the game.
i think you have to do ur research.it was $40m
Budget numbers for KZ2 were never confirmed. It cost a minimum estimated $45m, with some estimates ranging as high as $56m.
It was already in development well before the PS3's release, the they kept increasing the budget/team size to get it to look like the CGI demo they claimed was ingame...
not really if they really were that much into the development cycle then they must have shown demo's andwould not have been flamed as people thought it was fake
they DID show demos. And claimed it was in-engine graphics. And people thought it was fake. And it turns out it was.
GT5 itself costs $60m with more time than KZ2 and with high paid people and a big team,noway GG is getting paid more and has bigger budget
The game was INTENDED to have a much smaller budget. ($20m) But Sony had to match the visuals they had promised, so the eventual budget balooned to over double that. The intention wasn't to spend so much on it. Besides, I didn't claim the $60m, that probably is too high - I merely disagreed with the $30-$40m estimate.
|
