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.

Exactly. As I said, what the dev wanted to do with it, was showcase the PS3. If they wanted to... Sell more copies, they'd have had a splitscreen option.

every dev wants to sell and jst because they didn't add splitscreen or another option doesn't mean they didn't wanna sell

Budget numbers for KZ2 were never confirmed. It cost a minimum estimated $45m, with some estimates ranging as high as $56m.

it was reported to have $40m in 2008

those $56million are absolute bullshit.it jst couldn't get near it.

they DID show demos. And claimed it was in-engine graphics. And people thought it was fake. And it turns out it was.

i meant playable demos by the public,they didn't show that,if they did then why would public doubt it

The game was INTENDED to have a much smaller budget. ($20m) But Sony had to match the visuals they had promised, so the eventual budget balooned to over double that. The intention wasn't to spend so much on it. Besides, I didn't claim the $60m, that probably is too high - I merely disagreed with the $30-$40m estimate.

you didn't claim $60m but you said that people who saying $20-40m need to do a reseach.........we know what that means

do you think corporations as big as sony jst lay out these game footages without planning everything.yeah the figure could have balooned but nowhere near  $20-30m

I didn't claim it cost as much as GT5, however, you're off about GT5 only costing $60m. If you look that up, GT5 was reported as having cost $60m to develop in Nov of '09, when it was expected to release soon.

it was never expected to release soon.heck Yamauchi itself said it and he of all people would know hen it is releasing

It's been almost another year since then, so the number would have climbed accordingly. how long was it in development? 5 years by that point? so it's budget has probably grown another $10-12m.

it wouldn't have risen that much even if they didn't include it in $60

As for longer dev time = huge cost, that is absolutely a fact, if it's a large dev team. Sometimes games take a while because a small team does all the work - that can keep costs in check. But when you have a massive team (like GG's became), then budgets swell accordingly.

bigger team doesn't mean the salaries remain the same

You don't have to feel bad for SC2, but blizzard has reported that it's development cost OVER $100m.

you are wrong again and that comment above jst proved you don't follow or do ur research

Blizzard never reported it is a $100m bugdet.it was wallstreet that reported it and blizzard shot it down

The result of a large development team working for a long time.

not always

1) I'm not saying they didn't want to sell, of course they did. The point was that their primary focus was showcasing PS3's capabilities, not maximizing profit. They could have released a game with 4 player splitscreen and a much lowerbudget if they hasn't tried to match the original CGI demo they showed. But they wanted the best looking game out there. If it wasn't a Sony funded product, it would have been reckless.

why the hell do you think splitscreen is so important.if they don't like it they wouldn't.and they didn't have to do it small budget as they had a set budget and work the best out of it

and why do you thik they tried to reach the CGI trailer,it could have easily been in their grasp

and yeah if not funded by sony it could have been a disaster

2)It was reported to be at least $40m in '08, no concrete numbers confirmed. $56 does sound high, but $45m doesn't. It's dev team was massive.

naughty dogs dev team is massive but they do $20 per game and it is the best thing out there

3) Some people doubted it because it looked too good to be in game graphics - and for the time, it was.

fools

4)What that means? it means $20-30m was way too low. it doesn't mean $60m.

but it means is its nowhere near it too so.........

As for companies like Sony... have you seen Sony's financials from recent years? Their projections were off 7 years in a row. And do you know why the figure ballooned above $20m?

it was on target last year

it wasn't off target 7 years in a row but was  many time i know this,it was basically their whole strategy with blu-ray and HD-DVD early release had big hand in it

Because they promised something that cost way more than they budgetted for it.

we don't know that as games today are that good

Remember the initial specs announced for the PS3? they were out of this world. The actual PS3 was far more inline with reality later on.

yes but that was also because HD-DVD consortium tried to release it early and so SONY had to act and release PS3

PS3 would have never released in 2006,it would have released in 2007 with at $399 price tag

And so was the final budget to make a game that looked like KZ2 - especially since it was before Sony had made all the dev tools they have nowadays.

again we don't know that

I'm curious, are you arguing that Sony didn't expect higher? Are you saying Killzone 2 met sales expectations? If so, have a source to prove it?

Questions about profitability are always very difficult to answer ...

Killzone 2 was not an inexpensive game to make, and before the game was delayed (by over 18 months IIRC) it was reported that it was the most expensive entertainment project in the Netherlands history; and at that time I thought it was reported at having a budget of (something like) $40 Million.

What this means is that (if you assume $25 revenue per copy sold) it would take 1.5 to 2.5 Million copies sold to break even on the development costs.

Now, this is where it becomes far more difficult to determine profitibility. Two games can have drastically different marketing costs which depend on how heavily marketed it is, as well as how targeted the marketing is. Getting TV spots on a late-night re-run of Star-Trek on an unpopular cable network can cost 1% of the cost of getting the same spot played on a prime-time broadcast on a major network. As you can probably imagine, a company could easily run through $100 Million marketing budget in weeks based on prime-time television, while they could run spots for months for quarter the cost on small networks durring off hours.

With that said, if you assume that they spent 25% to 50% of their development budget on marketing it would push the break even point to 1.9 to 3.8 million copies sold.

Basically, it is possible that it turned a modest profit or still lost a significant ammount of money.