By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Sega: Madworld on Wii was a “mismatch”

theprof00 said:
saicho said:
theprof00 said:

did you read that link I put up earlier? Most promotion is paid for through game sales. Bayonetta sold 13k this week. That's about 50k$ worth of advertising they can use without cutting into profit.

Plus, making a game on the wii isn't cheaper by much. You still have to hire the same people to do artwork, sound, etc, and it's really only the developing that is easier. All the assets cost the same.

while I understand your point, you are seriously misinformed on the cost for assets in SD and in HD. There are numerous discussions on the topic to show that.

yes, you're very right. I stand corrected by saicho and jarrod.

However, even at costing $15M for development, 45% of a game's profit goes to dev costs. For a 1M copy selling game, there's about 25-30M in dev revenue.

Additionally, I have a sneaking suspicion that the dev costs jarrod posted earlier include the purchase of computers, dev kits, and engine building.

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.  

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.



Around the Network

why can't they realize that maybe there isn't that big of an audience anywhere of people that want a pointless game of just pure gore/severings/brutality/mindless murder and swearing. sorry but there is no system that if madworld was on that i would buy that game.

and i'm sure there are many others who also wouldn't. i hate when developers think that if a game sales lets blame something besides ourselves



jarrod said:
theprof00 said:
saicho said:
theprof00 said:

did you read that link I put up earlier? Most promotion is paid for through game sales. Bayonetta sold 13k this week. That's about 50k$ worth of advertising they can use without cutting into profit.

Plus, making a game on the wii isn't cheaper by much. You still have to hire the same people to do artwork, sound, etc, and it's really only the developing that is easier. All the assets cost the same.

while I understand your point, you are seriously misinformed on the cost for assets in SD and in HD. There are numerous discussions on the topic to show that.

yes, you're very right. I stand corrected by saicho and jarrod.

However, even at costing $15M for development, 45% of a game's profit goes to dev costs. For a 1M copy selling game, there's about 25-30M in dev revenue.

Additionally, I have a sneaking suspicion that the dev costs jarrod posted earlier include the purchase of computers, dev kits, and engine building.

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.  

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

And last gen ny game possibly costing that much was either an already established hit franchise, or had an out of control budget.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

And last gen, any game possibly costing that much was either an already established hit franchise, or had an out of control budget.

Final Fantasy X cost $32 million, but that was the first FF on 'new' PS2 hardware. The last FF on the PS2 (FF12) was $42 million. I could just imagine how much FF13 ran Square Enix....(definitely $100m+)

That is probably the most expensive example I could find; GTA:San Andreas was probably in between FFX and FF12, but that did sell 18 million+



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

SaviorX said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

And last gen, any game possibly costing that much was either an already established hit franchise, or had an out of control budget.

Final Fantasy X cost $32 million, but that was the first FF on 'new' PS2 hardware. The last FF on the PS2 (FF12) was $42 million. I could just imagine how much FF13 ran Square Enix....(definitely $100m+)

That is probably the most expensive example I could find; GTA:San Andreas was probably in between FFX and FF12, but that did sell 18 million+

Shenmue was an out of control game, and it cost as much as Too Human. So even budgets that big don't need HD graphics, but that routine budgets are still closer to that amount is a problem.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
SaviorX said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

And last gen, any game possibly costing that much was either an already established hit franchise, or had an out of control budget.

Final Fantasy X cost $32 million, but that was the first FF on 'new' PS2 hardware. The last FF on the PS2 (FF12) was $42 million. I could just imagine how much FF13 ran Square Enix....(definitely $100m+)

That is probably the most expensive example I could find; GTA:San Andreas was probably in between FFX and FF12, but that did sell 18 million+

I think FFXII got ballooned more by the delays than anything.  I'm shocked FFX was that much (no wonder they wanted to do X-2 right away), though with FF games I guess they probably used to spend quite a bit proportionately on the CG.  That's one aspect that HD consoles helps somewhat, in that more parts can just be done in realtime or at least with realtime assets.



jarrod said:
SaviorX said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

And last gen, any game possibly costing that much was either an already established hit franchise, or had an out of control budget.

Final Fantasy X cost $32 million, but that was the first FF on 'new' PS2 hardware. The last FF on the PS2 (FF12) was $42 million. I could just imagine how much FF13 ran Square Enix....(definitely $100m+)

That is probably the most expensive example I could find; GTA:San Andreas was probably in between FFX and FF12, but that did sell 18 million+

I think FFXII got ballooned more by the delays than anything.  I'm shocked FFX was that much (no wonder they wanted to do X-2 right away), though with FF games I guess they probably used to spend quite a bit proportionately on the CG.  That's one aspect that HD consoles helps somewhat, in that more parts can just be done in realtime or at least with realtime assets.

And yet FFXIII still had FMVs. Not sure if that's relevant here. Just noting that.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Madworld would have failed on HD consoles anyway, that genre is crowded this year and I heard Madworld was like 5 hours long.



LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:
SaviorX said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

And last gen, any game possibly costing that much was either an already established hit franchise, or had an out of control budget.

Final Fantasy X cost $32 million, but that was the first FF on 'new' PS2 hardware. The last FF on the PS2 (FF12) was $42 million. I could just imagine how much FF13 ran Square Enix....(definitely $100m+)

That is probably the most expensive example I could find; GTA:San Andreas was probably in between FFX and FF12, but that did sell 18 million+

I think FFXII got ballooned more by the delays than anything.  I'm shocked FFX was that much (no wonder they wanted to do X-2 right away), though with FF games I guess they probably used to spend quite a bit proportionately on the CG.  That's one aspect that HD consoles helps somewhat, in that more parts can just be done in realtime or at least with realtime assets.

And yet FFXIII still had FMVs. Not sure if that's relevant here. Just noting that.

Yeah, but they use ingame models.  That's what I meant by it likely helping to lessen costs (comparably at least) on CG.



SickleSigh said:
Madworld would have failed on HD consoles anyway, that genre is crowded this year and I heard Madworld was like 5 hours long.

And has no replay value. Many games are even shorter but are worth the price due to that.

The game might have worked better as a WiiWare game.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs