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

Forums - Sony - Did Guerrilla Games make profit on Killzone 2?

IMU1808 on 12 August 2010

In Qore they labelled it a Critical and Financial success.
My Math labeled it a financial success.
The 60M budget was a rumor... nothing more. We had the same rumor about MGS4 and that was shot down.



Around the Network
Ping_ii on 12 August 2010

YEH im sure they didn't profit at all, that why they are well on their way making KZ3 so they can lost more money!!! right?

speaking of not profiting I have just the game in mind and most probly make a thread about it.

 

*HINT (WAKE up) =)



Jereel Hunter on 12 August 2010

It doesn't matter if it profitted - KZ3 was a tech demo, first and foremost. If the game was about making money, it would have had options like split screen - but the game was put out to show what the PS3 could do.

and anyone who thinks the game was made for $30-$40m has not done any research into the effort that went into the game. It was already in development well before the PS3's release, the they kept increasing the budget/team size to get it to look like the CGI demo they claimed was ingame...



cmeese47 on 12 August 2010
makingmusic476 said:
Slimebeast said:
makingmusic476 said:

Sony gets around $34 for every first party title they sell at $60:

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=102058

Let's say they only sold 2 million copies at $60. That'd put them at ~$70 million in revenue not counting the other 300k and counting units they're shipping. Estimates peg the game as having a $40-50 million development budget (just shy of MGS4), which would imply the game has preformed quite nicely.

What if it had a $15-20 million marketing budget? Total expenses would then be ~65 million and profits only $5 million.

...assuming the game stopped selling at 2 million, yes.

And I don't know much about the marketing budget.  I'd assumed it had been included in the 45 million figure, but I guess that's not very likely.

A year or so ago Gameinformer did an article discussing development costs and revenue return from sales, in their article advertising was included in development cost.



Solid_Snake4RD on 12 August 2010
IMU1808 said:

In Qore they labelled it a Critical and Financial success.
My Math labeled it a financial success.
The 60M budget was a rumor... nothing more. We had the same rumor about MGS4 and that was shot down.


yeah it was near $40m



Around the Network
cmeese47 on 12 August 2010

if it didnt make money on initial sales then it did on dlc



Ping_ii on 12 August 2010


Solid_Snake4RD on 12 August 2010
Jereel Hunter said:

It doesn't matter if it profitted - KZ3 was a tech demo, first and foremost.

it was KZ2

If the game was about making money, it would have had options like split screen - but the game was put out to show what the PS3 could do.

NOT NECESSARILY as it depends what the dev wants to do with it

and anyone who thinks the game was made for $30-$40m has not done any research into the effort that went into the game.

i think you have to do ur research.it was $40m

It was already in development well before the PS3's release, the they kept increasing the budget/team size to get it to look like the CGI demo they claimed was ingame...

not really if they really were that much into the development cycle then they must have shown demo's andwould not have been flamed as people thought it was fake

GT5 itself costs $60m with more time than KZ2 and with high paid people and a big team,noway GG is getting paid more and has bigger budget





Ping_ii on 12 August 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Jereel Hunter said:

It doesn't matter if it profitted - KZ3 was a tech demo, first and foremost.

it was KZ2

If the game was about making money, it would have had options like split screen - but the game was put out to show what the PS3 could do.

NOT NECESSARILY as it depends what the dev wants to do with it

and anyone who thinks the game was made for $30-$40m has not done any research into the effort that went into the game.

i think you have to do ur research.it was $40m

It was already in development well before the PS3's release, the they kept increasing the budget/team size to get it to look like the CGI demo they claimed was ingame...

not really if they really were that much into the development cycle then they must have shown demo's andwould not have been flamed as people thought it was fake

GT5 itself costs $60m with more time than KZ2 and with high paid people and a big team,noway GG is getting paid more and has bigger budget



Not only did GT5 had longer dev time it also has truck load of content implemented to it!!! who in the world actually belives KZ2 cost even romotely close to GT5?

BTW if were talking simply longer dev time = huge cost then I feel sorry for red dead, alan,starcraft as these game took their sweet time.



Solid_Snake4RD on 12 August 2010
Ping_ii said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Jereel Hunter said:

It doesn't matter if it profitted - KZ3 was a tech demo, first and foremost.

it was KZ2

If the game was about making money, it would have had options like split screen - but the game was put out to show what the PS3 could do.

NOT NECESSARILY as it depends what the dev wants to do with it

and anyone who thinks the game was made for $30-$40m has not done any research into the effort that went into the game.

i think you have to do ur research.it was $40m

It was already in development well before the PS3's release, the they kept increasing the budget/team size to get it to look like the CGI demo they claimed was ingame...

not really if they really were that much into the development cycle then they must have shown demo's andwould not have been flamed as people thought it was fake

GT5 itself costs $60m with more time than KZ2 and with high paid people and a big team,noway GG is getting paid more and has bigger budget



Not only did GT5 had longer dev time it also has truck load of content implemented to it!!! who in the world actually belives KZ2 cost even romotely close to GT5?

the guy i replied to did believe it

BTW if were talking simply longer dev time = huge cost then I feel sorry for red dead, alan,starcraft as these game took their sweet time.

i don't think starcraft was that much into development long time ago so wouldn't feel sorry for it as blizzard were also doing alot of other work

alan wake,yeah this one is a case of sorry as it had PC version cancellation and other problems

red dead again alot of delays and problems in development cycle