No, I explained that to the other dude. I never even inferreed that they cost over. I said upwards of 50 million meaning nearing that amount. I meant is as being within the range of 50 million.

I was surpirsed by how much GT5 cost. I thought all of the top of the line titles were around 40-50 million. Though that was only an estimate to begin with, it turned of to not be that far from the truth. That was only stated to prove the point of how high the cost were compared to the other consoles though.

The 100% absolute specific were never important. I wasn't arguing the exact cost of development, just that it was higher for the PS3 in general than any other console.

Just seemed weird to me to mention minor ones like Kuju and Monster yet leave out big ones like Treyarch and Capcom.

I was only listing the 2nd party devs, not the third party.

thats not what upwards means. 

when you say something costs upwards of $50million to make, it means it costs more than $50 million.

if you were to say most A+ games aproach $50 million to make, then that would mean nearing the amount. but youd still be wrong becuase Uncharted cost nowhere near that, and with 99.9999% certainty we can say Heavy Rain cost no where near that either, not even in the same galaxy. and those 2 games were your example.

and you were still wrong becuase only a handful of games cost around or more than 50 million. 

most games dont cost anywhere near it. and i gave you an example of perhaps the highest production value game: Uncharted costed $20 million.

edit: here's a study claiming average development cost is between $18-28 million.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/33625/Study-Average-dev-cost-as-high-as-28m

Wait, Treasure are owned by Nintendo!? (I incorrectly posted that you didn't include them btw, unless you added them after I posted)

Nah, nobody owns treasture to my knowledge. They just have some second party games with them.

btw, I'm curious where Atelier fits into your established paradigm. Obviously there is nothing inherently expensive about developing for the PS3 because that team has never sold anything close to what you say the average should have to sell on HD and have always made profits off their smaller JRPGs, often before they even localize them so it's even less than the total sales that VGC mentions.

Therefore my argument would be that there is nothing inherently expensive about developing for the HD systems, it all depends on how far you want to take your graphics budget. You are able to take it higher on HD than you could on the Wii, but there is nothing forcing it higher. In this way Wii U is going to be exactly the same btw as its graphics capabilities are obviously better than the PS360.

No, it won't be the same because its not as complex. The Wii U is straight foward as far a programming goes.

To get the same result to the same level on the Wii  U as you would on the 360/PS3 is cheaper for the Wii U if dev comments(and there are many) are to be believed.

This article says it well.

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/

You mean, like the 360?

You forget everything that isn't tied strictly to the programming aspect of the production. You only cherry pick the example that suit your little agenda, forgetting that there are plenty of games that cost much less than 10 million to produce and were huge hits.

Again, the costs of a project is tied to the ambition behing it. Not to its programming.  Early on in a gen I could give it to you, but right now, that point just doesn't apply to productions on the HD consoles.

There's the issue of consumer expectations though. You could theoretically make a PS3 game that was just PS2 level assets in HD to save money, but that would turn off a lot of gamers.