When will people realise ..

for any system the more you spend on a game the better the graphics will be

Look at MGS4

Griffin said: I'm pretty sure the Top Nintendo games cost 20mil aswell. I've heard reports before that SMG was 20mil, i have no doubt the other big Nintendo games cost over12mil to make.

It may have cost $20 Million, but I doubt that number without any source associated with it ...

I think people are trying to use one or two data points to try to make generalizations which doesn't work. What we do know which is (pretty much) undisputed is:

• XBox 360 and PS3 games require a larger quantity of more varied graphical assets in order to populate the environment to give it a more realistic appearance.
• XBox 360 and PS3 games require much higher quality graphical assets which require more time modeling (often requiring a high quality model for normal mapping, and a lower quality in game model), animating (the absence of subtile motions in animations on high quality characters is one of the main problems that gives characters a dead look), and texturing (often involving higher detail textures with more layers).
• XBox 360 and PS3 games require more work in improving the simulation of the world; objects will require a work in order to get them to react as expected in the physics engine, and you will set up "hints" (like good cover points, hiding places, etc.) for the AI in order to make it seem more intelligent.

When you add all the extra time together the estimates of 2 to 4 times the budget requirements of previous generation games to produce a similar PS3 and XBox 360 game make sense.

Certainly, Wii games (due to their similarity to previous generation games) will probably approach $20 Million at the upper limit; but these games are similar in scope to the Metal Gear Solid 4s which have a development team of 200 people, a development lifecycle of 3 years, and a (rumored) budget of $70 Million.

shams said: 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).

According to this very site, Uncharted has sold almost 20% more than Red Steel.  The numbers here put revenue for Uncharted at 72 million (assumed cost = $60) and revenue for Red Steel at 46.8 million (assumed cost = $50 just to give Red Steel the benefit of the doubt here, it's only $20 on Amazon and I distinctly recall only paying $40 for it).  Subtract money for the budgets of both games, Uncharted is at 52 million, which is more than Red Steel's entire total revenue.  The idea that Red Steel has done vastly better for Ubisoft than Uncharted has for Naughty Dog/Sony is clearly not true.

Gears of War was 10 million I remember hearing .

And Namco said that with 500K worlwide they could break even with a HD game .So if they make say 30 dollars on each game that means their budget would be 15 million dollars .I think that was for big productions ,as it is not reasonable to think any game that doesnt break 500K worlwide is dragging down its responsables .

I also heard a PSP game was 600 000 dollars ,and a DS one half that .

As the PSP development costs were about the same as the Cube and PS2 after this ...

http://www.psprumors.com/2005/08/15/psp-shares-same-development-budget-as-cube/


At 20 million (if its true ) I think Uncharted is one of the more expensive PS3 games to date .I am sure Insomniac did with far less budget games as Ratchet and Clank and Resistence .

Diomedes1976 said: Gears of War was 10 million I remember hearing . And Namco said that with 500K worlwide they could break even with a HD game .So if they make say 30 dollars on each game that means their budget would be 15 million dollars .I think that was for big productions ,as it is not reasonable to think any game that doesnt break 500K worlwide is dragging down its responsables . I also heard a PSP game was 600 000 dollars ,and a DS one half that . As the PSP development costs were about the same as the Cube and PS2 after this ... http://www.psprumors.com/2005/08/15/psp-shares-same-development-budget-as-cube/ At 20 million (if its true ) I think Uncharted is one of the more expensive PS3 games to date .I am sure Insomniac did with far less budget games as Ratchet and Clank and Resistence .

 Gears cost $10 mil. to develop, but $20 mil. after marketing.  We don't know if the Uncharted figure includes marketing costs or not.

phil said: shams said: 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). According to this very site, Uncharted has sold almost 20% more than Red Steel.  The numbers here put revenue for Uncharted at 72 million (assumed cost = $60) and revenue for Red Steel at 46.8 million (assumed cost = $50 just to give Red Steel the benefit of the doubt here, it's only $20 on Amazon and I distinctly recall only paying $40 for it).  Subtract money for the budgets of both games, Uncharted is at 52 million, which is more than Red Steel's entire total revenue.  The idea that Red Steel has done vastly better for Ubisoft than Uncharted has for Naughty Dog/Sony is clearly not true.

Return on investment ... $20 budget for uncharted gives it a profit of 250%, $12 Million budget for Red Steel  gives it a profit of 290%

Uncharted also (probably) had a noticeably higher marketing budget which would further reduce its Return on investment.

 

DMeisterJ said: So uncharted has sold 1.25 million copies * sixty bucks a copy, equals 75 million in revenue? I mean, I know some of that goes to the store and Sony, but it basically made profit, right? So with all of those "ZOMG Killzone 2 costs 50 million" threads will be quenced, so long as it sells ~2 million copies? cool.

They get around $25 of that.

Also keep in mind development costs don't count adds. Which... i've seen a LOT of uncharted adds... and taxes.

HappySqurriel said: phil said: According to this very site, Uncharted has sold almost 20% more than Red Steel. The numbers here put revenue for Uncharted at 72 million (assumed cost = $60) and revenue for Red Steel at 46.8 million (assumed cost = $50 just to give Red Steel the benefit of the doubt here, it's only $20 on Amazon and I distinctly recall only paying $40 for it). Subtract money for the budgets of both games, Uncharted is at 52 million, which is more than Red Steel's entire total revenue. The idea that Red Steel has done vastly better for Ubisoft than Uncharted has for Naughty Dog/Sony is clearly not true. Return on investment ... $20 budget for uncharted gives it a profit of 250%, $12 Million budget for Red Steel gives it a profit of 290% Uncharted also (probably) had a noticeably higher marketing budget which would further reduce its Return on investment.

  I'm sure that noone is crying over 250% vs 290%, especially if their overall profit was higher.  It's laughable to suggest that, compared to Uncharted, Red Steel was a gold mine.  Financially, both games have performed comparably.

Redsteel couldnt have cost more than 2 million to make. talk about piece of shit

HappySqurriel said: Return on investment ... $20 budget for uncharted gives it a profit of 250%, $12 Million budget for Red Steel gives it a profit of 290% Uncharted also (probably) had a noticeably higher marketing budget which would further reduce its Return on investment.

Buuuuuuuuuut, we really don't know what the total cost was for Uncharted. Maybe it's 20 million if the person that was quoted knew the total cost. If 20 million is just the development budget then the total cost will be higher.