forevercloud3000 said:
I'm just chiming in to say this... Nintendo has remained profitable year after year because everything they put out is at minimum breaking even out of the game and the pedigree of their franchises has their games selling millions each time. Pokemon: this game has been chump change for NIN to make since the second game. The biggest tech evolution came with X/Y but even that couldn't have cost them that much. Regardless they series sells 8million every release. Gold mine. Mario *insert sur-title here* are never "big budget". No matter how crafty or fun these games are, they don't cost NIN anywhere near as much as Halo does MS or Uncharted does Sony. Honestly, less than 10million is just being marginal, I imagine they are pretty cheap to make. Once again, they will sell millions regardless. Realistically, Smash Bros probably cost them the most because with each game they actually have to retweak game mechanics and fine tune new and old characters. Zelda might also cost a lil something but not like any other game's budget in the Adventure genre. None of this is bad mind you, quite the opposite. The fact NIN continues to pump out heavy hitters for chump change is remarkable. Other devs could learn from them. Why does it cost devs 10s of Millions to pump out a game that is barely going to break even? Concentrate less on Graphics and Evironmental Effects, more on consistantly inventive and intuitive gameplay. |
Do you really know why games are more expensive? They need larger teams over longer periods of time. I don't see how Nintendo (with more employees than either SCE and MS Game Studios) is immune to this because the hardware they have is weaker. That really doesn't matter, you just don't have to spend as much time on the graphical aspects of development.
Is how much you change the game was directly proportional to development costs, then Assasin's Creed and Call of Duty would be some of the cheapest games ever.
