All prices you find in Europe already include tax. Here in Croatia, for instance, a 25% tax. Brrrrrrr

I think you offically degenerated into grasping at straws. The time it takes you to come up with that reply, you could have looked and searched for more evidence to support your argument but instead, you decided to cling on to your citation-less source. If being more informed and knowledgable means making baseless-illogical assumptions and posting more sources-less articles then I rather stay uninformed and less knowledgable; I sleep happier at night knowing I can defend my argument with facts and sources.

My case with the average stems from the lack of raw data and other statistical information. If you have taken any stats courses or read up any stats book, you will know that SD would give you the variation from the average. If there is a high SD, it means the data could be skewered by 1 or 2 development firm that overspent on their game - which by the way does not help your argument/logic of pinning average game production cost at 20 million.  Other stats to look is the sample pool, how many developement firms did they collected information from? Did they take into account the thousands of low cost startup developers or Japanese developers? Maybe Yes, maybe no? Like I said, unless we see the full extent of their study, the 'average' is just taken out of context. SInce this is your only argument source, I can see why you are desperatly trying to validiate it.

I think you have a serious comprehension problem. I never said marketing does not improve sales. I said it's not logical for people to spend triple the development cost on marketing. Here take a look at this: http://www.visualscope.com/marketing102.html#2 . It has some usual insight to how marketer thinks and how much money people generally allocate to marketing. Lets apply this to our example: Lets say a game manages to sell all 500k copies of thier game at $40 a pop.. thats $20 M in revenue, taking 1-5% of the revenu to marketing.. we get:  1 million dollars! Even if you go crazy and spend 10% of your revenue to marketing.. that only equates to 2 million dollars. Do you still want to argue that a developer would put 50% of their revenue into marketing? /facepalm

Games are about enjoyment, not about budget. You can spend 100 million on a game, and it may still flop badly if it does click in with the audience. I think you seriously should go back to playing games instead of hanging around here making baseless assumptions and doom threads.

I brought up FPS because it its the console quality of late that people talk about. COD/ Halo 4.. etc. If you dont' like it, replace 'FPS' with any other popular genre but it doesn't change the argument one bit.

It's his thing, writing a whole lot of nothing, best get used to it, and maybe learn to ignore

OP: pretending to care about something doesn't make you credible, just sad. Look the Vita is doomed, even I said it now do us all a favor and move the fuck on

@wlakiz

Apparently you need this whole math thing explained to you, but first we should probably return to your train of thought, because you seem to have jumped the tracks. First you argue that twenty million dollars in pure development costs is too high. You instead argue like three million is more reasonable. That was kind of fucked up anyway considering we were talking about a AAA title, and not a AA, A, B, or shovel ware title. Oh no twenty million dollars was far too rich for your blood. Even though AAA titles on home consoles can actually cost in excess of fifty million.

So you demand that I justify those costs. Even though just about everyone on these forums know those costs are indeed possible. We read about games with astronomical budgets every single fucking year. So I do as you asked by hunting down the more recent, and altogether the most relevant source available, and you can cut the shit about no linking. News outlets repeat comments that were made verbatim, and that proceeds links by centuries. M2 Research doesn't run a news service out of its home page. They are not in the entertainment business. If you want you can go to their homepage, and they provide links to news stories that they were the source for. They aren't disputing the claims attributed to them, and they are the ones given credit. Nobody in their right mind disputes attributed quotes. If you feel this way then you probably think everything is a conspiracy, and every news program in the world is just telling unfounded lies.

M2 Research provided average development costs for a single platform game. Which was ten million dollars, and they provided high end costs which proved me right. At this point you should have conceded the point. You were arguing against a certain set of circumstances being even possible, and right there I had proved that they were. Once again though that wasn't good enough for you. So you set out to attack anyone who wasn't serving your purposes like a child throwing a tantrum. You blame Develop, you blame M2, you blame the fucking laws of reality, and common fucking sense, and that is where we are right now.

I actually thought your story couldn't possibly become any more ridiculous, and congratulations you have at least proven me wrong on something. Now you are arguing for extreme outliers that cost a hell of a lot more then the original figure that you were claiming was outrageous to begin with. What twenty million is too much, but a couple hundred million is just right. Either you are arguing for a couple obscenely expensive games, or you are arguing that my high end figures are terribly common. Are you just arguing to argue. I mean your taking my side as a rebuttal against me.

Look I am glad you want to bump my thread so that it gets more attention, but as you can see you are upsetting logic56. You should probably call it quits. I mean I will gladly argue for seven months and a hundred pages, but some Sony fans are getting upset about the topic.

"Apparently you need this whole math thing explained to you, but first we should probably return to your train of thought, because you seem to have jumped the tracks"

So in the end, you didn't even get to explaining the math, or justifying your estimate. /faceplam

Now where to begin so it can sink into your thick uneducated skull.

1. A game with extreme high production cost does not constitute as a AAA game. AAA games are ones that garner attention, good meta reviews and are have achieved good sales. There are many low production games out there like Angry Birds, Minecraft, Wii sport..etc are all considered AAA games without the large production price tag attached.

2. To make yourself credible, you should back yourself up with facts and citations. At this point, you couldn't even prove that M2 actually reported those numbers. Arguments don't hold water on just credentials alone. Even high profile stock analyst have to provide logical facts-backed-reasoning behind their analysis.

3. You really are uneducated. You can't tell the difference between 'challenging' and 'blaming'. I am challenging your sources not blaming them and the game goes both ways: you are free to challenge mine. I also don't know where I am "arguing for extreme outliers that cost a hell of a lot more then the original figure that you were claiming was outrageous to begin with" mind providing proper citation so I can address it? :-/

I find it funny that you would rather go on for several months and couple of hundred pages arguing than to provide more facts for your argument. At this rate, I can safely say that your next 200 replies would still summarize to "I can't back up my argument!!!! Please just believe mee!!!!". 

While it is often disputed what the exact definition of AAA means. Sadly because developers like to ascribe it to their products even when it is unwarranted. The most generally held belief is that each letter represents a aspect. The first refers to the development budget, the second refers to critical review, the third refers to sales. This would be the majority view in this community. Except obviously when it doesn't serve somebodies purposes. In a lot of ways it is better for a game to be AA then it is for a game to be AAA, because a AA game can have a greater return on investment. Angry Birds isn't a AAA game, but a AA game. Losing the first A doesn't mean that the game is suddenly awful. Just less of a bragging right for console warriors I suppose.

No citation is required, because Develop didn't rip the story off from someone else. The information obviously came from a privileged communication. I grant you that the internet is rife with shitty journalism, but there are actually some sites that take the time to communicate directly with sources. They got the information in what amounts to a face to face meeting. M2 Research isn't a internet blog or a hobbyist site. They convey information that they want public through other media outlets. M2 research gave this information to Develop directly. There isn't a intermediary. Just as their isn't a intermediary when someone is interviewed first hand.

You cannot apply the same standard applied to second hand information to first hand information. Let me put it in context. If I interviewed the President, and I printed some quotes from our conversation. Where would you find the citation. He told it to me, and now I am telling it to you. The President doesn't have a modem strapped to the back of his skull. I cannot provide you with an additional link. M2 Research told Develop, and Develop told us. It isn't convoluted, and it isn't complicated. This is a testament to how well respected the site is in the industry. If this doesn't suffice you have to explain to me how it isn't getting through to you.

I am going to ignore the next comment, because it is either going to become entirely irrelevant, because you will understand why the source is valid, or you are just going to be obstinate. In either case lets wait till you get on to the same page. Either you are going to work with the best data or you aren't.

I am as patient as the Sphinx, and that was my point. You might not understand this, but I am having a hell of a lot of fun with this thread. Especially now that I know it is pissing people off to see it continually pop back up to the top. To be honest though they really shouldn't complain, because this conversation we are having you and I is ten times better then any other conversation going on right now. Anyway I am more then happy to go around and around until the facts click into place for you, and even if they don't. I consider this time well spent, and I hope you feel the same. In fact I am pretty sure you feel the same, because you keep coming back.

=.=... I don't know why you make shit up like what each A in AAA stand for but in any case your argument scope is limited to high production cost games? So Piecing your disorganized arguments for you:

1. You believe that vita will fail because Vita's install base (even with price cut) is too low for high production cost games but you accept the notion that developers making 'AA' games would be successful?

2. You don't believe gamers would buy 'AA" games because there are 'AAA' games on console?

Reiterating my counter-argument: There are historical and current examples of AA games doing as good or better than your 'AAA' games and even if Vita becomes 'AA' game only console, it will flourish by continuing to attract many low budget developers and gamers.

FYI, anyone having a formal interview with the president would either record it or transcribe it. If your interview is informal, then your report holds no weight. Anything you say/quote is taken with grains of salt. LEARN ABOUT CITATIONS! Reporting anything without source or record CANNOT BE TAKEN AS FACTS!

In any case, you finally admit you don't have facts or any other sources to back you up, so this conversation is over. I can't say I had much fun.. it felt like teaching math to a goldfish. Have a nice day!

@wlakiz

Actually I said nothing of the sort. A title being AA means that it was well received by critics, and garnered significant sales. That has never equated to a title being dirt cheap to make. It just means that it did well in spite of not having a incredibly large budget behind its development. It is actually harder for a AA game to exist on the Vita then it is for a AAA title to exist on the platform. When you think of games on the platform that have had genuinely great sales. They are almost all AAA titles.

The Angry Birds is actually a exception to the norm rather then the norm. Most dirt cheap games won't sell nearly as well, because it is a cluttered space. With little in the way of advertising, or a thriving review community. Most dollar games don't even get reviewed. Anyway Developers who are selling forty dollar games on the platform can't rely on such a highly unlikely outcome. By the way the Angry Birds would be a retail disaster if it had to sell at that price point. So it isn't very relevant to this discussion.

I don't believe that AAA title outright eliminate the possibility for AA titles to exist on the platform, but they likely do stymy them from coming into being. Basically AA titles are A titles that managed to sell well enough to be recognized as commercial successes. They don't start out as AA titles. Only consumers through purchases can decide that. When Sony has a AAA title in the pipe. Something that cost a lot of money to make. Is going to be of high quality, and will probably sell well, because Sony is going to promote the shit out of it. That last part is what cock blocks titles from having a chance at becoming AA. The problem as I said at the beginning is the install base. There aren't enough users on the platform to create a lot of commercially successful titles. Even if some of those titles deserved to sell really well.

There is a reason that AAA games dominate the sales charts on this site. The companies that make these games know what they are doing. They dump enough cash into games to make them really good, and they hook us with marketing, franchises, and the next installment. It is very easy for us to become blind to games with lower budget, but that may be very good in their own right. Exceptions indeed exist, but once again they aren't the norm. Were they the norm most companies would forgo the safety of developing AAA titles to focus on creating AA titles.

Once again you dodge the real issue. This was a direct communication, and Develop only presented the facts that had been presented to them. Context doesn't even come into this discussion, and frankly what you are asking for is kind of impossible. What do you expect them to do hand over their note books, or make public private communications such as a email. Is that what you need to except anything as real. I got news for you pal there is always going to be a source at the end of the rainbow where citations end, because you have indeed reached the source. Since you just have to have another citation. The only thing left is to give you M2 Researches home page.

http://m2research.com/

If you have any doubts that the facts that Develop presented are true. Contact the source they cited in their article. As I have said I believe it to be genuine, because frankly it is hard to imagine that Develop wouldn't have been sued if this weren't the case. However seeing as you obviously don't believe them. Then go ask the source. You can contact them on email, attend one of their events, or talk to them on Facebook. Otherwise accept it and move on.

Should I stoop to the same level as you did with your last comments. While I confess to being tempted. I believe that I will be magnanimous seeing as you have ceded the closing comments to me. I have won this little battle, and I don't need to revel in another posters defeat, and while you obviously have no respect for me. I assure you that I do not feel likewise. You may not have carried the day, but you at least gave it your all. I don't have to agree with you to respect you, and I hope one day that you will understand that.