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

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

homer said:
Yeah. Without Insomniac working on it and these sales, I doubt we will see much more from it. Its last release will be on the Vita unless that gets canceled. Then again, look at what sony did with the killzone series.

Could not agree with your entire statement any more.  :)



Around the Network
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
KylieDog said:
ThePS3News said:
sales2099 said:
It aint the games fault, I personally believe PS3 gamers just dont care.

If it was on 360 id guarantee wed give it a warmer welcome and not insult the developer for its hard work

As much as i hate to admit it. You are probably right. :(


Because Battlefield 3, MW3 and Uncharted 3, all massively popular multiplayer shooters have nothing to do with it.  Or for multiplat gamers you can throw in Gears 3 and the Halo Remake.

Oh gimme a break.

"Us PS3 gamerz gotta ration our moniez cause were gonna go poor buying all these games!"

If someone wants a game, theyll buy it one way or another. Funny thing is Battlefield and COD both have higher preorders for 360 then ps3........yet we also bought over 3 million copies of Gears 3 in one week. Not to mention Halo CE will also have a high opening as well.

PS3 gamers dont care. You can spin but numbers dont lie.

you mean like 360 owners cared about metro 2033, about alan wake, about crackdown 2, about bulletstorm, about crysis 2, about most of the latest kinect games... ? warm welcome indeed.

you also seem to forget that the preorders here are only from north america, where the xbox has almost twice as much install base then the ps3, i would say preorders don't look that bad from that point of view.


Talk to me when we stop buying Halo and Gears. Flagship exclusives. Resistance used to be such a one for PS3. Guess it diminished.....a lot.

"we" ?  you say "WE" ? i'm sorry, i didn't realize, i should not have talked to you at all


lol nice job dodging the general point :)

i made my point, it was you who doged it in the first place by suddenly narrowing down the games. does it really matter which developer "you people" insult for their hard work? are you telling me it was the games fault that alan wake didn't sell?

Well your comparing an established IP to Alan Wake, a new IP. New IPs are hit or miss, regardless of quality. Resistance sales however just get smaller and smaller. Alan Wake broke a million, which is more then I can say for Resistance 3. Plus it was bundled, so theres probably another 1-2 million more people who got their hands on it. In the end, it did just fine 


Ok, you claiming that resistance failed after 2 weeks but Alan Wake that took over a year to reach a million in sales with most of them from the bargain bin and bundles and it "did just fine?"

you sir embarassing a lot of people by acting like the official speaker of the xbox community

Well sir people think its rating on metacritic impacted its sales. People thought it would be over 90 but ended up being in the low 80's. And again........new IPs introduced years into the gen are hit or miss with consumers. So it broke a million and sold 3 million overall with bundles. Again, it did ok for a 80's rated new IP. 

Once again......your comparing the 3rd entry in a series to a new IP. That in itself is a fail. Im simply pointing out that every resistance sells less then the predecessor. And Sony bargain binned all resistance games pretty fast after launch. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
Porcupine_I said:
sales2099 said:
KylieDog said:
ThePS3News said:
sales2099 said:
It aint the games fault, I personally believe PS3 gamers just dont care.

If it was on 360 id guarantee wed give it a warmer welcome and not insult the developer for its hard work

As much as i hate to admit it. You are probably right. :(


Because Battlefield 3, MW3 and Uncharted 3, all massively popular multiplayer shooters have nothing to do with it.  Or for multiplat gamers you can throw in Gears 3 and the Halo Remake.

Oh gimme a break.

"Us PS3 gamerz gotta ration our moniez cause were gonna go poor buying all these games!"

If someone wants a game, theyll buy it one way or another. Funny thing is Battlefield and COD both have higher preorders for 360 then ps3........yet we also bought over 3 million copies of Gears 3 in one week. Not to mention Halo CE will also have a high opening as well.

PS3 gamers dont care. You can spin but numbers dont lie.

you mean like 360 owners cared about metro 2033, about alan wake, about crackdown 2, about bulletstorm, about crysis 2, about most of the latest kinect games... ? warm welcome indeed.

you also seem to forget that the preorders here are only from north america, where the xbox has almost twice as much install base then the ps3, i would say preorders don't look that bad from that point of view.


Talk to me when we stop buying Halo and Gears. Flagship exclusives. Resistance used to be such a one for PS3. Guess it diminished.....a lot.

"we" ?  you say "WE" ? i'm sorry, i didn't realize, i should not have talked to you at all


lol nice job dodging the general point :)

i made my point, it was you who doged it in the first place by suddenly narrowing down the games. does it really matter which developer "you people" insult for their hard work? are you telling me it was the games fault that alan wake didn't sell?

Well your comparing an established IP to Alan Wake, a new IP. New IPs are hit or miss, regardless of quality. Resistance sales however just get smaller and smaller. Alan Wake broke a million, which is more then I can say for Resistance 3. Plus it was bundled, so theres probably another 1-2 million more people who got their hands on it. In the end, it did just fine 


Ok, you claiming that resistance failed after 2 weeks but Alan Wake that took over a year to reach a million in sales with most of them from the bargain bin and bundles and it "did just fine?"

you sir embarassing a lot of people by acting like the official speaker of the xbox community

Well sir people think its rating on metacritic impacted its sales. People thought it would be over 90 but ended up being in the low 80's. And again........new IPs introduced years into the gen are hit or miss with consumers. So it broke a million and sold 3 million overall with bundles. Again, it did ok for a 80's rated new IP.

Once again......your comparing the 3rd entry in a series to a new IP. That in itself is a fail. Im simply pointing out that every resistance sells less then the predecessor. And Sony bargain binned all resistance games pretty fast after launch.

no you don't

let me quote you people:  It aint the games fault, I personally believe PS3 gamers just dont care.

that is what you pointed out, you only kept twisting your own words on what you said after being called out.

alan wake has pretty much the same metacritic score as resistance 3 has, one opint up or down.  but you claim it affected the games sales, while you say resistance 3 is great but it's the ps3 communitys fault that it is not selling well. Make up your mind.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

mjk45 said:
rf40928 said:
osamanobama said:
I dont know where they got 270k from (i guess first week), but it has sold 370k, and that just in 2 weeks, so I dont know what they mean its been out a while. After 3 weeks it should have around 450k, and will likely have around 1.5 million by years end.
So this article is rather stupid

370k is not good at all for 2 weeks of sales .. and its even bad for a few days of a major title..   Gears of War 3 just sold 3 million copies in 6 days..and it cost alot less to develop Gears 3 ..then .. Resistance 3 mainly because of the data size of the game..and it cost less to ship on DVD then BD .. ( For a major title, Gears of War has had one of the lowest production cost of a major game series. Gears 1 cost 10 million.. Gear 2 cost 12 million, Gear 3 maybe cost 15 & so far Gears 3 has grossed 177 million with the 3 million copies sold so far )..  The majority of any games sales are in the first weeks, and after that is pretty much casual sales.  Alot of fans seem to do this and say "Yeah that will sell a few million more over the next couple years " , but what I've noticed on the PS3 is that mostly is not true.  It was true on the PS2, because the PS2 had double the console userbase of the PS3... Comparing over 120 million PS2's sold to 50 million PS3's is a huge difference - when you consider the casual and holiday sales of either compared.  Alot of stuidos are going multiplatform and others that aren't dont take the financial risk of making 'big' games. ( 'Big' games: meaning games that use alot of space & cost more because they have more content, more data, which required more man hours to develop) Even if you see MS go bluray next gen you wont see alot of studios making 'big' games still.. it'll be a slow process because of the huge cost of producing big titles that take alot more man hours& money to develop.  Looking at 'big'  games-  like Killzone 2 which cost 45 million.. you're talking they need to sell  3 Million just to make a profit worth it.  Dont forget you have to absorb the cost of the BD disc the games are shipped on, the packaging and logistical cost, and advertising cost on all media .. there's more cost still - you're  of course paying the studio back what it cost to make the game, plus what is left is profit.. and they still have to pay rent, employee insurance and other fees most never know exist.. or think of .. like paying share holders and executives.. if the "Important" people arent being paid they could care less if the game did 'break even'..

Data size isn't everything all it means is less compression yet you use it to imply that resistance 3 must cost more to make than Gears 3 because of disk storage BTW give us a link for your gears costings.

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 



rf40928 said:
mjk45 said:
rf40928 said:
osamanobama said:
I dont know where they got 270k from (i guess first week), but it has sold 370k, and that just in 2 weeks, so I dont know what they mean its been out a while. After 3 weeks it should have around 450k, and will likely have around 1.5 million by years end.
So this article is rather stupid

370k is not good at all for 2 weeks of sales .. and its even bad for a few days of a major title..   Gears of War 3 just sold 3 million copies in 6 days..and it cost alot less to develop Gears 3 ..then .. Resistance 3 mainly because of the data size of the game..and it cost less to ship on DVD then BD .. ( For a major title, Gears of War has had one of the lowest production cost of a major game series. Gears 1 cost 10 million.. Gear 2 cost 12 million, Gear 3 maybe cost 15 & so far Gears 3 has grossed 177 million with the 3 million copies sold so far )..  The majority of any games sales are in the first weeks, and after that is pretty much casual sales.  Alot of fans seem to do this and say "Yeah that will sell a few million more over the next couple years " , but what I've noticed on the PS3 is that mostly is not true.  It was true on the PS2, because the PS2 had double the console userbase of the PS3... Comparing over 120 million PS2's sold to 50 million PS3's is a huge difference - when you consider the casual and holiday sales of either compared.  Alot of stuidos are going multiplatform and others that aren't dont take the financial risk of making 'big' games. ( 'Big' games: meaning games that use alot of space & cost more because they have more content, more data, which required more man hours to develop) Even if you see MS go bluray next gen you wont see alot of studios making 'big' games still.. it'll be a slow process because of the huge cost of producing big titles that take alot more man hours& money to develop.  Looking at 'big'  games-  like Killzone 2 which cost 45 million.. you're talking they need to sell  3 Million just to make a profit worth it.  Dont forget you have to absorb the cost of the BD disc the games are shipped on, the packaging and logistical cost, and advertising cost on all media .. there's more cost still - you're  of course paying the studio back what it cost to make the game, plus what is left is profit.. and they still have to pay rent, employee insurance and other fees most never know exist.. or think of .. like paying share holders and executives.. if the "Important" people arent being paid they could care less if the game did 'break even'..

Data size isn't everything all it means is less compression yet you use it to imply that resistance 3 must cost more to make than Gears 3 because of disk storage BTW give us a link for your gears costings.

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

not trying to intrude into this carefully thought out argument you are making, but you realize that a lot of work on games is sourced out to india and china these days, especially design work that does not have to do a lot with coding or gameplay.

of course they are in no way illegal, but they still get paid low wages compared to the western world.

 



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network

Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.

This year on PS3, we've gotten the following retail exclusives:

LittleBigPlanet 2
ICO Collection
MLB 11: the Show
God of War: origins Collection
Killzone 3
Resistance 3
inFamous 2
Disgaea 4
Yakuza 4
Prince of Persia Trilogy
Tomb Raider Trilogy
MotorStorm: Apocalypse
Socom 4

Plus we still have Ratchet and Clank: all 4 One, and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception on the horizon.


Meanwhile, the Xbox has gotten the following Retail Exclusives:

Gears of War 3

And they still have Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition and foza 4.

That's 13 games vs 1....or if you wanna chop out the compilations, that's still 9 vs 1. I'm sorry, but I'm really thinking that flawed argument (that the PS3 has enough variety to disperse its crowd) may very well have some merit.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 said:
Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.


That's 13 games vs 1....or if you wanna chop out the compilations, that's still 9 vs 1. I'm sorry, but I'm really thinking that flawed argument (that the PS3 has enough variety to disperse its crowd) may very well have some merit.


It doesn't. Gamers don't think in terms of what's exclusive and multiplatform when it comes to making a purchase, maybe on the net, which accounts for very little.

So far this year (according to our numbers) the PS3 has sold 1 million extra HW units, but SW, they're both at 64 million games sold. The extra 3 mill userbase on 360 might have helped propel it, but the extra 1 mill new owners from this year should have more than evened that out.

This doesn't even include XBLA/PSN games which I'm pretty sure XBLA is far out ahead.



 

Runa216 said:
Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.

This year on PS3, we've gotten the following retail exclusives:

LittleBigPlanet 2
ICO Collection
MLB 11: the Show
God of War: origins Collection
Killzone 3
Resistance 3
inFamous 2
Disgaea 4
Yakuza 4
Prince of Persia Trilogy
Tomb Raider Trilogy
MotorStorm: Apocalypse
Socom 4

Plus we still have Ratchet and Clank: all 4 One, and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception on the horizon.


Meanwhile, the Xbox has gotten the following Retail Exclusives:

Gears of War 3

And they still have Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition and foza 4.

That's 13 games vs 1....or if you wanna chop out the compilations, that's still 9 vs 1. I'm sorry, but I'm really thinking that flawed argument (that the PS3 has enough variety to disperse its crowd) may very well have some merit.

The 360 does have some exclusives coming soon, but they are less.. whether it matters or not is debatable.. Depends on if you're a  fanboy or not ..and alot of people have more then one console.. The 360 has plenty of games..  its just most people only avg 6 to 10 games per console ( no matter the console )...Yeah there are some people here that have 20+ games, but they are not of the 'norm'.... as you can tell by PS3's top ten list.. more choice doesnt mean good selling games, which is what any console maker wants ultimately -  maybe just as much as the developers who can only survive and make those games if they sell enough copies to stay in buisiness.... the best selling PS3's titles are often ones on the 360  being multi-plats.. not games like Resistance which sell ok, but nothing that sells consoles there with those numbers.... PS3's bundled with COD sold very well..



rf40928 said:
mjk45 said:
rf40928 said:
osamanobama said:
I dont know where they got 270k from (i guess first week), but it has sold 370k, and that just in 2 weeks, so I dont know what they mean its been out a while. After 3 weeks it should have around 450k, and will likely have around 1.5 million by years end.
So this article is rather stupid

370k is not good at all for 2 weeks of sales .. and its even bad for a few days of a major title..   Gears of War 3 just sold 3 million copies in 6 days..and it cost alot less to develop Gears 3 ..then .. Resistance 3 mainly because of the data size of the game..and it cost less to ship on DVD then BD .. ( For a major title, Gears of War has had one of the lowest production cost of a major game series. Gears 1 cost 10 million.. Gear 2 cost 12 million, Gear 3 maybe cost 15 & so far Gears 3 has grossed 177 million with the 3 million copies sold so far )..  The majority of any games sales are in the first weeks, and after that is pretty much casual sales.  Alot of fans seem to do this and say "Yeah that will sell a few million more over the next couple years " , but what I've noticed on the PS3 is that mostly is not true.  It was true on the PS2, because the PS2 had double the console userbase of the PS3... Comparing over 120 million PS2's sold to 50 million PS3's is a huge difference - when you consider the casual and holiday sales of either compared.  Alot of stuidos are going multiplatform and others that aren't dont take the financial risk of making 'big' games. ( 'Big' games: meaning games that use alot of space & cost more because they have more content, more data, which required more man hours to develop) Even if you see MS go bluray next gen you wont see alot of studios making 'big' games still.. it'll be a slow process because of the huge cost of producing big titles that take alot more man hours& money to develop.  Looking at 'big'  games-  like Killzone 2 which cost 45 million.. you're talking they need to sell  3 Million just to make a profit worth it.  Dont forget you have to absorb the cost of the BD disc the games are shipped on, the packaging and logistical cost, and advertising cost on all media .. there's more cost still - you're  of course paying the studio back what it cost to make the game, plus what is left is profit.. and they still have to pay rent, employee insurance and other fees most never know exist.. or think of .. like paying share holders and executives.. if the "Important" people arent being paid they could care less if the game did 'break even'..

Data size isn't everything all it means is less compression yet you use it to imply that resistance 3 must cost more to make than Gears 3 because of disk storage BTW give us a link for your gears costings.

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 

and the costing in both those links have very narrow definition's you just have to look at the credits of gears 1-3 to see the hidden expense

the coders and artist's are but a small segment and epic have made no secret of MS's help off setting the cost of the games and I also noted that the

article mentioned that 20 mill was pretty much tops for the majority of games and where is your evidence that  more effort was put into R3 "to break the game open", by saying that I assume more effort = more money spent and by your reasoning so far, enough to make it a AAA budget .

My answer to that would be to look at resistances history it basically came to life because Sony wanted a fps for the PS3 launch so they contracted Insomniac to make them one, at first it had a fantasy type setting that moved to a space marine style which was seen as to similar to halo and canned,  it finally became the Alt history game we see today , despite the disadvantage of opening on a small hardware base  fall of man had the advantage of having the genre to it self and that was followed up with heavy bundling, so allowing for the now much larger base offset by a more crowded genre and less bundling the 3.7 mill is probably similar to or a bit under  resistance 2's  sales, so in effect we are most probably seeing a series with real sales of about 2 mill per game turned out on a 2 year cycle ,so all in all we have a series that was made to fill a niche that has sold  enough and is cheap enough to be made in 2 year cycles, so no resistance 3 would not have a lot of extra resources put into it by Sony to help turn it into a block buster game, Talking about sales people have to realise that the 5 plus million seller games are not the norm and in fact resistance is a better than average selling fps but was never going to be anything else .

 

 



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

rf40928 said:
mjk45 said:
rf40928 said:
osamanobama said:
I dont know where they got 270k from (i guess first week), but it has sold 370k, and that just in 2 weeks, so I dont know what they mean its been out a while. After 3 weeks it should have around 450k, and will likely have around 1.5 million by years end.
So this article is rather stupid

370k is not good at all for 2 weeks of sales .. and its even bad for a few days of a major title..   Gears of War 3 just sold 3 million copies in 6 days..and it cost alot less to develop Gears 3 ..then .. Resistance 3 mainly because of the data size of the game..and it cost less to ship on DVD then BD .. ( For a major title, Gears of War has had one of the lowest production cost of a major game series. Gears 1 cost 10 million.. Gear 2 cost 12 million, Gear 3 maybe cost 15 & so far Gears 3 has grossed 177 million with the 3 million copies sold so far )..  The majority of any games sales are in the first weeks, and after that is pretty much casual sales.  Alot of fans seem to do this and say "Yeah that will sell a few million more over the next couple years " , but what I've noticed on the PS3 is that mostly is not true.  It was true on the PS2, because the PS2 had double the console userbase of the PS3... Comparing over 120 million PS2's sold to 50 million PS3's is a huge difference - when you consider the casual and holiday sales of either compared.  Alot of stuidos are going multiplatform and others that aren't dont take the financial risk of making 'big' games. ( 'Big' games: meaning games that use alot of space & cost more because they have more content, more data, which required more man hours to develop) Even if you see MS go bluray next gen you wont see alot of studios making 'big' games still.. it'll be a slow process because of the huge cost of producing big titles that take alot more man hours& money to develop.  Looking at 'big'  games-  like Killzone 2 which cost 45 million.. you're talking they need to sell  3 Million just to make a profit worth it.  Dont forget you have to absorb the cost of the BD disc the games are shipped on, the packaging and logistical cost, and advertising cost on all media .. there's more cost still - you're  of course paying the studio back what it cost to make the game, plus what is left is profit.. and they still have to pay rent, employee insurance and other fees most never know exist.. or think of .. like paying share holders and executives.. if the "Important" people arent being paid they could care less if the game did 'break even'..

Data size isn't everything all it means is less compression yet you use it to imply that resistance 3 must cost more to make than Gears 3 because of disk storage BTW give us a link for your gears costings.

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.