kingofwale said:
Bodhesatva said:
This is a classic debating tactic. First, you insist that your "opponent" has claimed some ridiculously high (or low) statistic. Then, you show that the actual value of that statistic is lower than the ridiculous claim. "Some people claim that over a million people die each year due to gun related violence in the US. In reality, it's less than two hundred thousand!" This makes it look your figure is actually low, when it's only low in comparison to some ridiculously high figure. I don't think any reasonable person here thought that games were averaging 40 million, just that some of the higher end games did cost that much (such as Killzone2 and MGS4). I honestly don't know of anyone who thought this was the norm.
20 Million is very high, and puts the given estimates for copies needed to break even right where we've heard they are for higher end games: 700-1000k units. Sounds about right to me, and only further cements my perception that the PS3 is, indeed, very expensive to develop for. |
well, you do need money to get perfection. and Uncharted is one of the (if not THE) best game of 07 for Sony. 20 million for a PS3GOTY is a bargain in my opinion. but it's also very risky business, if the game sucks, the developer will get punished heavily by PS3 users, like Lair did |
Absolutely, not arguing at all with the game's quality, or value.
But if you're showing this as evidence that making PS3 games isn't expensive? No, that is not something this game proves. Again, it suggests quite the opposite, unless you were under the impression that games cost 40 million to make on average.
20 million effectively doubles the cost from last generation. That is not cheap. The fact that development costs didn't quadruple doesn't make doubling costs good, just less bad than some ridiculous inflationary statistic.
