Forums - Sony Discussion - Resistance 3: Disappointing Sales Cast Series into Doubt

d21lewis said:

See ya in the Chartz!


Naw, you're cool, it was others. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
Chrizum said:

I can't believe you got offended by a d21lewis post. That guy is the forum teddybear if anything!


I didn't, it was others here, PM's, and in other threads.  Plus I've decided I really don't feel the need to continue the whole "PS3 exclusives are better" Argument, because in the end nobody cares. (Even though they TOTALLY are!) 

I care and i think PS3 exclusives are the best games you can get for your PS3.

Quality + Quanity = Epic Win For Sony.  :D



It was a game that was hurt by it's predecessor despite it being a fantastic game, add in the upcoming heap of releases, the games released over the last few months and the whole heap of releases that PS3 users also could have picked up during the year and Resistance 3's sales are perfectly understandable.

2011 is the year of the 'drop out', meaning that due to a packed release schedule, some games are forced to fold. Crysis 2, Bulletstorm and Resistance 3 are all 'drop outs', they were all critically acclaimed, original in their own way and they all came from well respected and known developers and publishers, but they couldn't take the punches of a busy year.

I also believe that a shooter fatigue is setting in, big games will be out of reach (as seen with Gears, Battlefield, COD) mainly due to their brand names and marketing budgets, but anything below spectacular or a 50 million dollar marketing budget is going to get less than stellar sales numbers. Some games will be exceptions though, RAGE and Uncharted 3 will succeed because they are different enough, but I honestly think that the last successful mid tier (market status wise) military based FPS will be Killzone 3 and that's mostly because it released so early in the year.

When Cliffy B said that B-Tier (once again, by brand status in the market and not game quality) games are going to or are struggling, I think that his mainly referring to B-Tier shooters, because as we've seen with games like LA Noire, Catherine, Dark Souls, Deus Ex and Dead Island, success can be found on the busy release season battlefield.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Scoobes said:
rf40928 said:
Scoobes said:
rf40928 said:

Ok heres some links .. I said Gears 1 was 10 million to develop, and Gears 2 was 12 million ..

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/96188/cheap-epic-says-gears-of-war-cost-less-than-10-million/ ( Gears 1 )

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27008924 ( Gear 2  )  and http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=371971

And Gears 3 was on a Gears 3 video, I'll try to find a link, but the evidence thus far is pretty clear- which is : Gears has been very CHEAP to produce.. AND factually speaking most successes like this had much higher cost... I know more effort was put into Resistance 3 as hopes this would break the game open and this always equates to more money - not just more data.. afterall people do get paid to make games - they arent made by illegal aliens that are smart enough make games - and somehow dumb enough to accept paid low wages huh?  Didnt think so..

And yes.. you're right...  more data doesnt always mean more cost..but usually it does.. The most recent GTA had a huge budget - but part of that reason is it was multiple platform game .. In multi-plat titles the risk is relatively low compared to exclusives which might not make the money back.. The sales history of Resistance 1 and 2  has been less then Gears 1 & 2..... If Resistance 3 sells less then R2 did ( and its looking that way - As R2 also sold less then R1 ).. you'll probably see no R4 

I believe Epic actually have a Chinese subsidary. If they had a hand in the development of Gears then I can imagine they'd be a lot cheaper than their Western equivalents.

I also think the dev costs are low because Epic aren't including the original engine development costs for creating UE3 (which is fair considerring they license it out and it's basically its own product). However, Insomniac have effectively done the same thing by creating an engine and using it to release a new game every year (alternating between Ratchet and Resistance). I really don't see how Resistance can cost that much more than Gears.


I beleive you're right about the engine cost..but there's no way to know about the Chinese subsidary, but I doubt it because while Epic is the parent company of Chair Entertainment, Titan, and People Can Fly, the studios it has ( that you refer to ) in Shanghai, Seoul, and Tokyo  would've done minor ( if any ) work at all... EPIC, which is based in Cary, North Carolina is credited with all the devlopment work and has been very open about the development of Gears.. stating to the public that no more then 10- 20 people were working on any Gears game at any given time ( which is why these games havent been cranking out fast ) - and also why cost was lower then big time games like COD - ( which COD has TWO Large Studios working on COD year round )

The development cost of Resistance seems to have been guarded very closely .. its hard to find much on it.. which would lead some to beleive they dont want anyone to know what they spent ( what they lost -or- didnt make ).. Companies dont brag about bad numbers the way Epic talks about their 'good' numbers because it makes shareholders nervous.. So while you might be right and Resistance may have not cost alot more to make ( possibly )..... they dont seem to want to talk about it..

Most developers don't give out their budget costs and even when they do they usually give either a range or rounded figure. With Epic, it's in their best interests to give the impression that UE 3.0 costs keep development budgets down so they'll do whatever they can do to publicly claim a game budget is as low as possible. All companies do this to sell their products and you always have to take such marketing talk with a pinch of salt, especially as UE 3.0 licenses are probably quite a nice earner for them (the gamepro link especially looks like a marketing presentation). I don't doubt that there was a core of 10-20 people working on the games at any one time, but they're probably ignoring a large chunk of personnel that would do important but minor jobs and the programmers that are constantly tweaking the engine (as they'd probably fall under a seperate Engine development cost).

Insomniac on the other hand have no such product/Engine to sell and have no need to give out budget costs leaving us guessing. However, considerring they've used the same engine over the entire gen and the fact that it's the third game (lots learnt from previous 2), I don't see how the budget can differ much from Gears. It's all guesswork though.

I really dont think they Epic needs to 'plug' the Unreal Engine which is known well enough and been considered more times then most engines - as anyone making a certain game genre knows whether it would work for them or not  - as its been used in countless games past and present ( older and newer versions of the engine ).. Now that Rage is coming out multi-plat it'll probably be a next best thing engine-wise.. but well see..

Also I want to touch on what you said.  I dont know whether developers really want to give out their cost or not.. but evidence and human nature both point to the fact that the majority of big time games seem to have their budget out there.... and while others dont -maybe part of that is most people dont care about the budget of an unsucessful game?  The average developer cost is 28 million.. and big games do have their budgets out there for everyone to see.. GTA IV 100M budget, Too Human 80M,  Metal Gear Solid 50-70M,  Halo 3, 60M, Killzone 2 was 40M.. you get the point.. yet Resistance 1,2,3 turned up practically nothing in a search..and marketing-wise Sony touted this game as one ready for the big time..



rf40928 said:

I really dont think they Epic needs to 'plug' the Unreal Engine which is known well enough and been considered more times then most engines - as anyone making a certain game genre knows whether it would work for them or not  - as its been used in countless games past and present ( older and newer versions of the engine ).. Now that Rage is coming out multi-plat it'll probably be a next best thing engine-wise.. but well see..

Also I want to touch on what you said.  I dont know whether developers really want to give out their cost or not.. but evidence and human nature both point to the fact that the majority of big time games seem to have their budget out there.... and while others dont -maybe part of that is most people dont care about the budget of an unsucessful game?  The average developer cost is 28 million.. and big games do have their budgets out there for everyone to see.. GTA IV 100M budget, Too Human 80M,  Metal Gear Solid 50-70M,  Halo 3, 60M, Killzone 2 was 40M.. you get the point.. yet Resistance 1,2,3 turned up practically nothing in a search..and marketing-wise Sony touted this game as one ready for the big time..

On the engine, Rage and iD Tech 5 are going to be kept in-house for Bethesda games. And even though Epic has a high profile (especially now), they'll still try to sell the engine  to as many people as possible and that means convincing people (especially smaller devs) that believe it might be out of their budget that it's worthwhile. Crytek are really the only major competition for UE 3.0.

On the budgets, it's quite likely that the budgets you found are really only in the public eye because they're rather high. You'll probably have difficulty finding the Killzone 3 and Halo ODST budgets because they're almost certainly lower than for their predecessors (and probably quite normal). No-one really cares if the budgets are relatively normal.