jlmurph2 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
I said less than $100m before I read all of your post. I would agree with pachter.
Revenue does not equal profit, far from it in this case and they seemed unlikely to develop any more Gears games anyway.
Your guess of half a billion dollars is insane.
|
I know revenue is not profit, thats why I added in development costs which are low compared to other games.
Even if you say each gears of war game took $100m to make (even though its no-where near that amount), they still made over half a billion in profit from it so far.
|
Nonsense. Half a billion profit!? Nowhere near.
My understanding is that the publisher was Microsoft, the platform was microsoft. The vast majority of the money went to Microsoft.
Epic were just the developers and may have been paid a fee to do it, or perhaps were paid a percentage of the revenue. But 50% of the revenue as profit for the developer is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
|
Sorry, I assumed it was revenue for epic.
But still...even if that chart is correct, Epic's share would be ~$500m and take away the reported development costs, they still would have have made hundreds of millions from this.
Furthermore, thats just games revenue, you also have to factor in either the money MS were paying them for exclusivity, or the money they would have gained by going multiplatform. Those two options would have made them more than $100m easily.
|
You don't have to specifically pay much for exclusivity if you put in all the money to make the game itself. Its not like Titanfall since MS had to pay EA and then EA publishes it. With Gears they were skipping the middle man.
|
Im sure epic could afford the $10m development cost. They would have lauched it on all platforms for more money, the only reason they didnt is because they could earn more from the exclusivity deal MS offered them whcih covered the income they would have generated from other systems.