Uncharted's budget was...

[phil]

Bodhesatva said:

Expensive is by definition a relative term, phil. It has no meaning in a vacuum. "More expensive than everyone else" is the very definition of expensive. Just as a 600 dollar car is cheap because almost all cars cost tens of thousands more than that, game development is expensive if it is,by your own admission, "more expensive than everyone else."

You couldn't possibly try to split a hair more finely than this, and you're still incorrect. You agree that development on the PS3 is "more expensive than everyone else" but take objection with the suggestion that development is "too expensive?"

Please. If we're bringing game quality into this -- and not just discussing economic conditions -- then this completely obliviates any meaning of the term "too expensive." You could always claim that the game in question is something you personally hold in high regard, and therefore, no matter the expense, it isn't "too expensive" because to you, it was worth it.

You've effectively drained the word "expense" of all meaning to try and split this hair.

 Of course expensive is a relative term.  But the relations you're using and comparisons you're making are wholly inappropriate.  The only comparison you can make with regards to development being too expensive are with the 360, as that's the only comparable system.  I can also say that the Wii and PS2 are expensive to develop for, because development budgets for the NES are miniscule in comparison, but, as the systems aren't comparable, then that'd be irrelevant wouldn't it?  This is what you're doing, albeit on a smaller scale: you're comparing development budgets for two systems that are entirely different.