krik said: DOATS1 said: if $20 million is expensive, then what the hell is microsoft doing payin $50 million for episodic content?? Microsoft got screwed on that one... ouch

No.

The 50m is a "down payment" on revenue from the episodic content - its not a "bonus" payment for the content. Say $10 / episode, that's only 5m sales (across two episodes).

So MS collect all the revenue for the first 5m sales - then Take2 start getting money after that.

For a cashed up company like MS - its a very simple, and smart move. 

 

People seem to forget that of course it will take alot of money to build a game from scrtch. but once a devloper has there game engine up the next few games are cheaper to make due to the fact that you already have an engine. this is the reason why soo many dev bought Unreal Engine so that it would cut dev time in half due to already having an engine in place. This is also why you get soo many sequels to games cause they run under the same engines just devloped with different tools specifically for each game.

thanks

Expensive is by definition a relative term, phil. It has no meaning in a vacuum. "More expensive than everyone else" is the very definition of expensive. Just as a 600 dollar car is cheap because almost all cars cost tens of thousands more than that, game development is expensive if it is,by your own admission, "more expensive than everyone else."

You couldn't possibly try to split a hair more finely than this, and you're still incorrect. You agree that development on the PS3 is "more expensive than everyone else" but take objection with the suggestion that development is "too expensive?"

Please. If we're bringing game quality into this -- and not just discussing economic conditions -- then this completely obliviates any meaning of the term "too expensive." You could always claim that the game in question is something you personally hold in high regard, and therefore, no matter the expense, it isn't "too expensive" because to you, it was worth it. Even though it cost 30 million dollars to produce, I thought Stranglehold was awesome! Therefore, it isn't too expensive, because I personally deem it worthy of this cost.

You've effectively drained the word "expense" of all meaning to try and split this hair. You could claim that no game is "too expensive" using the system you've set up here.

 

 

Here. We agree that "we all know it to be true" that PS3 development is "more expensive than everyone else" (your words in quotations). We agree on that? Good. We're done.

phil said: DOATS1 said: phil said: "Too expensive" and "more expensive than the Wii" are two entirely different things. You didn't address "too expensive." You only addressed "more expensive than everyone else." I agree with you that it's more expensive than everyone else Additionally, I reckon you'd have a hard time claiming that $20 million is too much for Uncharted when Red Steel cost almost $13 million. Especially considering that Uncharted is widely regarded as a good game to Red Steel's mediocre and that Red Steel looks like a game that could have run on the previous generation of hardware(who's development costs you have pegged at $10 million). do you have to include the other posts in your quote? I do it to keep context. If people don't like it, I'll stop.

You do realise that Red Steel has almost sold the same number of units as Uncharted? And that it has almost certaintly (being a launch title) shipped more units than Uncharted?

Ubisoft has made MORE money from Red Steel than Uncharted has made. And development/marketing cost almost half.

...

Uncharted is NOT a good example, if someone is trying to paint PS3 development in a positive light from a financial point of view. The best examples would be the cross platform titles (CoD & Assassins).

shams said: Give me 20m, and three years and I could *definitely* deliver Uncharted - absolutely no doubt.

Give me half a million and 12 months and I could *definitely* deliver (insert some game beloved of everyone here) - absolutely no doubt.

See, everyone can make unsubstantiated claims like that.

you guys dont understand..


after spending 10 mill on a game they could scrap a game half way through and or be "polishing it up nintendo style" and that ads to the cost.



thats why metal gear will be costing extra

they had to upgrade fluidity of character movement and blah blah

shams said: No. The 50m is a "down payment" on revenue from the episodic content - its not a "bonus" payment for the content. Say $10 / episode, that's only 5m sales (across two episodes). So MS collect all the revenue for the first 5m sales - then Take2 start getting money after that. For a cashed up company like MS - its a very simple, and smart move.

 According to the latest it dosn't seemlike MS will get any money from the episodic content. especially if rockstar has the option to price it or not. MS would just get whatever % they usually get from 3rd party DLC on Live.

  http://www.thebitbag.com/2008/02/21/microsoft-blogger-breakfast-bullets/

Well, the way I understand it is that Naughty Dog is an excellent developer. I haven't played Uncharted, but it sounds like an awesome game for the buck.

That said, 20 mil

Bodhesatva said: Expensive is by definition a relative term, phil. It has no meaning in a vacuum. "More expensive than everyone else" is the very definition of expensive. Just as a 600 dollar car is cheap because almost all cars cost tens of thousands more than that, game development is expensive if it is,by your own admission, "more expensive than everyone else." You couldn't possibly try to split a hair more finely than this, and you're still incorrect. You agree that development on the PS3 is "more expensive than everyone else" but take objection with the suggestion that development is "too expensive?" Please. If we're bringing game quality into this -- and not just discussing economic conditions -- then this completely obliviates any meaning of the term "too expensive." You could always claim that the game in question is something you personally hold in high regard, and therefore, no matter the expense, it isn't "too expensive" because to you, it was worth it. You've effectively drained the word "expense" of all meaning to try and split this hair.

 Of course expensive is a relative term.  But the relations you're using and comparisons you're making are wholly inappropriate.  The only comparison you can make with regards to development being too expensive are with the 360, as that's the only comparable system.  I can also say that the Wii and PS2 are expensive to develop for, because development budgets for the NES are miniscule in comparison, but, as the systems aren't comparable, then that'd be irrelevant wouldn't it?  This is what you're doing, albeit on a smaller scale: you're comparing development budgets for two systems that are entirely different.