Uncharted's budget was...

[phil]

shams said:

phil said:

DOATS1 said:

phil said:

"Too expensive" and "more expensive than the Wii" are two entirely different things. You didn't address "too expensive." You only addressed "more expensive than everyone else." I agree with you that it's more expensive than everyone else Additionally, I reckon you'd have a hard time claiming that $20 million is too much for Uncharted when Red Steel cost almost $13 million. Especially considering that Uncharted is widely regarded as a good game to Red Steel's mediocre and that Red Steel looks like a game that could have run on the previous generation of hardware(who's development costs you have pegged at $10 million).

do you have to include the other posts in your quote?

I do it to keep context. If people don't like it, I'll stop.

You do realise that Red Steel has almost sold the same number of units as Uncharted? And that it has almost certaintly (being a launch title) shipped more units than Uncharted?

Ubisoft has made MORE money from Red Steel than Uncharted has made. And development/marketing cost almost half.

...

Uncharted is NOT a good example, if someone is trying to paint PS3 development in a positive light from a financial point of view. The best examples would be the cross platform titles (CoD & Assassins).

According to this very site, Uncharted has sold almost 20% more than Red Steel.  The numbers here put revenue for Uncharted at 72 million (assumed cost = $60) and revenue for Red Steel at 46.8 million (assumed cost = $50 just to give Red Steel the benefit of the doubt here, it's only $20 on Amazon and I distinctly recall only paying $40 for it).  Subtract money for the budgets of both games, Uncharted is at 52 million, which is more than Red Steel's entire total revenue.  The idea that Red Steel has done vastly better for Ubisoft than Uncharted has for Naughty Dog/Sony is clearly not true.