By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 24 February 2008
Edit Thread
PooperScooper said:
Kasz216 said:
hunter_alien said:
Bodhesatva said:

Wait, what? That's expensive. It isn't Killzone2 expensive, but it's very expensive all the same.

Why would you post this as proof of how cheap the PS3 is, when it's apparent that pretty much everyone else agrees that this is, in fact, great evidence that the system is expensive to develop for?

 

"India only has a 20 percent infant mortality rate, not 40 percent like some crazy people claimed. Told you guys it was an awesome place to grow up!"


Because some people made a theory that PS3 games usually cost 30-35 million ... at least thats what Ive read in one of the threads here :P


Usually? Whoever said that is insane. Occasionally. If you count advertising... I'm sure most of the big name exclusives cost that much...

Multi-plat or just low level exclusives... no way.


I dont know how much people said the development costs for games were but I distinctly hearing people say "OMG ratchet and clank and Heavebly Sword flopped. No profit OMG" which take the 30 dollars per sales means the development costs have to be over 25mil


Neither of those likely have made a profit yet... unless Sony paid for a majority of there advertising. Avertising budget is the part you are missing. In America at least there was a time where you couldn't not see adds for Ratchet and Clank and HS.  Primetime adds are ghastly exensive.

Also, i'd put it more at around 24-25. That's about the average i've seen quoted for HD games. Even if you assume an average 30 Sony games see less profit per unit than 360 games for third party publishes. HD-DVD's cost more then Blu-Ray and Sony's licesing fees are more expensive.