Bodhesatva said:
phil said:
Bodhesatva said:
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. |
Another classic debate tactic... someone calls you on something and you go back on it and say that isn't what you meant. I suspect a strained parsing of your own words is to come. If your point is that developing a game on the PS3 is expensive for mere mortals, than your point is moot, because everyone already knew that. The same probably applies to every video game system on the planet. If your point is that the PS3 is expensive to develop for, even relative to it's competition, then your point may not be moot, but you've failed to give evidence for your claim. If those aren't your points, please enlighten me. |
This isn't what you asked for in the last post -- you asked me to provide evidence of other PS3/360 games. Now, you're asking me to provide evidence of games for other systems. That is my point. http://www.nintendolife.com/articles/2006/08/12/red_steel_development_costs Red Steel, largely assumed to be the most expensive third party Wii game yet produced (in the same way we assume MGS4 and FFXIII are the PS3's most expensive games) cost 12.75 million to produce. If the most expensive Wii game costs slightly more than half an average PS3 game (the most expensive ones, such as MGS4 and FFXIII, reportedly breach 40 million), then it's quite l likely that the Wii averages less than half -- I was just being generous. http://tech.commongate.com/post/Wii_Development_costs_a_quarter_to_half_compared_to_PS3_360/
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/cars/news.html?sid=6149154 Here, THQ's president states that Wii development is 1/4 - 1/2 the cost of PS3/360 development. There are plenty others, if you need it, but this isn't something that's typically challenged because so many publishers have spoken openly about it. Here's a few more tangentially related articles: Development costs are crazy, acording to EA. Costs on Sony/Microsoft platforms leading to "creative failure," labeled "innovation killers" due to high costs. |
