| theprof00 said: Ouch happy, you are a smart guy but your points get besmirched by your presentation of falsified details. Activision didnt even produce call of duty vita, and the 8 mil konami made was likely rooted in 2m in dev costs. Developing for vita is pretty easy and ports fly to it quickly and cheaply. And stop just "picking numbers" out of the air like with warner brothers example. |
Activision did publish Call of Duty, which means they did pay for the development of the game in hopes of turning a profit, and in the future they're (probably) going to be questioning whether that was a good choice ...
I would doubt your 2 million development costs ... 2 million would be a low budget Wii game not 4 games for a platform which (in general) has higher development costs than the Wii. A low budget PS-Vita game is (probably) around $2.5 million to develop, a typical game would be closer to $5 million, and a big budget game would be $10 to $20 million; needing (with marketing costs) in the range of 250,000 sales to break even on a low budget game, 500,000 to break even on a typical game, and 1 to 2 million to break even on a big budget game.
I don't think anyone could claim that the PS-Vita's software sales have been strong enough to justify solid support in the future ...
Edit: Consider that PS2/XBox/Gamecube/Wii games typically had 20 to 40 people working for 18 to 24 months to develop games, and XBox 360/PS3 games typically have 60 to 100 people working 24 to 36 months, and that the PS-Vita development falls somewhere between the two. Your "$2 million" konami estimate would mean that each game was produced by around 5 people in 1 year ... kind of a moronic estimate.
