Uncharted's budget was...

[Bodhesatva]

phil 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.

Here's the problem: you aren't actually quoting any real statistics EITHER. All you're doing is saying "well, it's 2x the cost of development of a last generation game." Well no friggin crap. And it cost more to develop on PS2 than it did for PS1. Was it double the cost, I dunno, but logically, it's more.

So, if you're terribly interested in intellectual honesty, how about, instead of saying that you think it simply must be expensive, give us some statistics to back your point up, such as budgets for games of comparable quality for the PS3/360.

You seem to have missed my point.