Ah an article trying to make things look the way they like it.
All pictures you posted there are extremely misleading. Shows how much reliable the article is.

Just going to do one example, as you can figure out the rest on your own:

'
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WRONG !

1) The publisher gets only about $27 out of a full priced game
That means that if they expect 2 million units to break even, the budget is $54m and not $120m

2) They're talking about 2m sales and not 2m sales at full price.
One example I'm using here is Mirror's Edge, who shows typical HD console sales habits.

It hit 2m sales at week 114
It sold 0.95m after 9 weeks (2 months), which I count as full price (even though non AAA games don't last that long at $60). That's $25.6m for the publisher.
The next 26 weeks the game will be sold for $30. The Publisher gets $4.5m. For the rest of the time the game can be bought for $10. Publisher gets $3.2m.

So instead of $54m the true budget is more around $34m.

3) The game is coming out on 3 different platforms, so you obviously need to reduce some costs when talking about PS3/360 only games or exclusives.

I was expecting someone to pick that one out of "all" of them to tocus on while ignoring the rest. At first, I wasn't even going to add it to the list. Attacking one outlier does not does not make a huge difference. The bulk was quite valid.

That picture was also packaged with this:

 Obsidian Entertainment is another developer  trying to break even.  They consider South Park: The Stick of Truth to be a low-cost triple-A game.  According to THQ,  “South Park requires a relatively smaller investment than other titles due to its simple animation.”   They also say that South Park needs to sell at 2 million units to break even.   Any less and it’s a financial disappointment by Obsidian’s measure.

"1) The publisher gets only about $27 out of a full priced game"

I'm not talking about publishers. I'm talking about devs. They get less than the publishers. That chart doesn't even factor that in which  leads me to call it as bogus.

Depends on your target audience. Disgaea is succesful on ps3 despite it being pretty much what you described. 

CURSE YOU EA!!!!!

Sony, of course.

lol no I just picked one out and you can apply the same formula to the others, except Red Dead Redemption since they said full price.

For the second part. The devs are getting the money from the publishers. D'uh it's in the $27 so everything is fine.

Of all the things you posted, you call my article bogus ? Just shows how blinded you are by your Nintendo love. You have been proven wrong many many times in this thread already. Your credibility is close to zero by now.

Nintendo love? How does Nintendo even factor into this? I'm talking about dev costs and profits.

Your credibility just hit zero. I point out flaws in your analysis and you throw out insults as a response without ever directly addressing the point, forget all the earlier ones that you just brushed over. My goodness.

I stack up proof to back my claims and your only response to it is "WRONG !" folowed by data with no  specified context or relativity to the subject.

Oh my. Psychological projection much, eh?

???

SONY's closings have been weird. Like Incognito shutting down, those guys forming two new devs, and then SONY hiring them to develop games for them. Like... wtf? How does that work? They get a second chance because their new names are sexier?

Or the Liverpool closing, when in actuality it was just firing 1/3 of the staff, and moving the rest to other dev teams. I can't really call that a closing.

I just looked up some quick info and MS and SONY are both tied at 4 closures. With the weird events of the SONY closures I mentioned above, i'll say MS is the worst offender.