If no one cares, it wouldn't got this many replies on this thread :p

OK, I guess I will. If the CD-i can have Zelda and Mario games, the PS4 deserves some too!

Just ignore him, I think he was purposefully trying to get people to reply to him there

I already gave you the source of the wiki before you even sent it, are you just purpousely playing it?

Nintendo didn't say the game costed 100M or that they would get 120M revenue from 2M Zelda sold. They said that by selling 2M they would break even on the costs of Zelda. Costs mean developing, manufacturing, shipping, taxes, marketing, etc... and the stores make profit from the sales as well, so from a 60USD retail sale Nintendo would make between 30 and 40 per copy. There isn't much other means to show you that no Zelda didn't cost 100M to develop, but if you want to believe whatever you want be welcome.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-Uncharted-4-cost-to-make 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gran-turismo-5-sporting-60-million-budget/1100-6239328/

https://www.engadget.com/2013/04/21/heavy-rain-cost-52-million-but-made-130-million-you-do-the-ma/

But since Bayonetta 2M sales on PS360 was brought out... why not look at Bayo2 selling less than 1M and having publisher different than dev, so putting as if the publisher didn't paid for the full game and got all the sales it would be like devs would get 30 USD per game sold or 25M tops and using the rule of thumbs for dev cost and marketing it would be something around 15M tops for dev cost.... and on this we are ignoring all the manufacturing and shipping cost while pretending all the 850k sales were made at full price.

Sorry but 30M dev only cost for Bayo 2 doesn't stick.

Nintendo gets a bigger cut than third party developers, because they dont have to pay the royalties of the platform, since they own it.So you are looking at something closer to 45 to 50 dollars of profit per copy.And a 100% profit cut from digital sales.So that gets the game costs to something very close to 100 millions.I dont know why you are trying to argue your way out of this one.Hell, its not even against me you are arguing.Its against Nintendo themselves.

Just to point out, the Zelda example was just to demonstrate that Nintendo dosent go "cheap" on their game budgets, just that they dont overboard as the other developers.But you are already deflecting the point by saying that Nintendo is just breaking even and not making a profit.Yeah, and?That was not the point.

Another thing that dosent make sense, at least as far as games that are funded by their own developers and/or publishers, is that "marketing dosent count in the development cost".If you want to be technical, then yeah, sure.But if you dont market your game enough, you simply wont sell the game, not in enough units anyway.Thats why Nintendo, Sony, MS and other companies spend millions building their booths at E3, making conferences that have a live orchestra and so on.So not counting in the costs of marketing in the overall expense of a game is not wise, to put it lightly.Thats why you see Nintendo doing the directs, which is one way to maximize exposure and minimize costs(Another reason why Nintendo games tends to be cheaper to make and get a profit out of)

And my final point is that all those examples you gave me are useless.Should I say then that, since Destiny had costed 140 million dollars to make(source is in the most expensive games to make), then Uncharted 4 or God of War 4 mjust have costed more to make then because they look more pretty and/or are better games?See how useless that comparison is?Sometimes games cost more because of mismanagement.Sometimes it costs more because the planning time took longer.Sometimes it costs more because of X reasons.So saying that Bayo must have costed 10 millions to make because Heavy Rain costed 52 millions, instead of the usual 30 or so millions that usually AAA games tend to cost(As stated by the link the other user gave and you simply ignored because it didnt fit your narrative), reaching the conclusion that Bayonetta budget was 20% of that is stupid.This is not providing a source.This is providing nonsense.

Plus your Uncharted 4 link is broken.

So I ask you a third time:Where is your source?And if you dont manage to give one next time, and just make the usual horrible argumentation that you do when you are either losing or lost the argument, we are done here.

That's a false analogy.  Bayonetta is NOT comparable to someone "discovering" fire (not inventing).  It's something that existed, didn't perform and consequently became a game that others didn't want to support.  

It's completely logical that the game would have been dead without a big investment from an outside company.  Games like Bayonetta aren't cheap to make, and on the business side of things there wasn't really much of a reason to revive it.  Nintendo did it for image more than anything else, I'd wager.  Nintendo is feasibly the only major publisher that needed that and  therefore means that no one else would have done the same.

That isn't to say that a "better" game couldn't have been made using the resources for the Bayonetta sequels, but that rhetoric is just as bad as the one you're accusing others of having.  "If this game wasn't made, a better one would have been."  No way of knowing that.

If you had to deal with his work, you'd be punching people in the face too... 

He doesn't punch people. He slices them up into pieces with elaborate combos.

Im not surprised. It ran like shit on PS3

Going to get to try this series out here pretty soon on my switch.