Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:
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.
|
I'm arguing against you because you are saying things that make no sense, assuming margins that ignore all costs and think it covers only development.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/28/gta-5-sales-hit-1-billion.aspx GTA 5 265M to develop and market (and as I have been saying to you for modern AAA marketing is about half the total cost), but for some reason Zelda costed only 30% less being developed for a single platform with much simpler assets.
And sure it isn't Nintendo that goes the cheaper route is EVERYONE ELSE that goes overboard... that is a very good argument sure, it's easier for dozen of companies to be wrong, have bad management, etc than Nintendo to have a different direction that cut cost. You also probably think that cellshaded assets cost almost as much as photorealistic and also require similar HW power.
Doesn't matter how you cut it down, marketing being a cost isn't a development cost, same way manufacturing, shipping and taxes are costs but aren't development cost. So on your premise that Zelda costed 100M to develop and break even on 2M sales with an revenue to Nintendo that is like 60% higher than anyone else, the marketing, manufacturing, shipping and taxes should cost 0 for the numbers to even match. But I see you won't ever accept even the possibility of being wrong.
Nope, Destiny costed more than Uncharted to make mainly because of needing more assets to be made. You have to stop thinking all companies are dumb and Nintendo is the enlightened one.
I gave you plethora links, and the link worked... but you can ignore if you want, skip doing even any google quick search to validate any of your arguments and pretend you won, for all I care that is meaningless.
curl-6 said:
Guys, can we take the Pokemon discussion elsewhere, it's kinda derailing the topic.
DonFerrari said:
Nope man, Bayoneta is a best seller on WiiU, and that is why Nintendo paid for its dev
|
Nintendo paid for its development because it fills a vacant niche in their lineup and gives them some street cred for having a 90+ rated "hardcore" exclusive. They knew when they bought it that it wasn't a multi-million selling cash cow. It's purchase was always about improving their image and countering the "Nintendo is just for kids" perception.
|
You are right, the game had a positive effect and even with low sales it was well received by the userbase (at least from what we can see here). I was being sarcastic because some people really seem to think anyone else would have paid for Bayo and its incredible selling potential.
SpokenTruth said:
That really didn't answer what I requested.
I'm pretty certain Bayo 2 cost more to develop than all but Nintendo top IPs. Dev time x # of staff x average salary = a very crude guesstimate of development costs. Bayo 2 was 3 years and nearly 100 employees. That puts it above most 2nd tier Nintendo developments. And by the way, average industry salary is ~$70k. That puts Bayo 2 at ~$21 million. Give or take $5 million.
|
Bayo 2 at 21M I think is a little high, but reasonable estimative (I think it's to high because it goes over the cost of even uncharted 3, which is a multimillion seller AAA with top notch graphics and voicing) and probably would make the project on a 800k sales a lot risky. But what do you say about our dear Nautilus who infer Zelda costed 100M solely on dev cost.