Yep, having UC1 and 2 really helped driving 3 cost down... but from what I found from 1 to 4 the cost wasn't that much different (talking about 30-50M range, that is average AAA games).

I think Zelda have costed around 30M, hard to be more than that because of the style used (it is a good and pretty game, but doesn't seem like a money hungry one)

Sure salary is the most relevant cost to calculate. But art style, size of game and VA add on team size and additional cost.

100-300 (fixed and contracted to specific portions) for 5 years were more or less the involvement for GT5 at the time. Zelda although with simpler look have a lot of attention to detail that can drive dev time to higher portions.

But about the 100 for Zelda, do you have a source that the 100 were involved around the whole project the whole time? (because a lot of steps on the game are specific to one team while other artists don't participate).

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.

Heh, more like fans of Sony only

I wasn't discussing GT5 cost against Zelda... just showing that both had about the same fixed and fluctuating staff on similar lenght to dev... which is impressive on Zelda closer to cell-shaded and not photorealism, but pointing that a lot of that goes to the attention to detail put.

And you are right that the difference in cost between both (although I think GT5 took more than 5 years in the making, but regardless) is due to licensing since it doesn't have much VA or even CG made for it and both have Japanese team.

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.

Yep, because ps4 owners or sony fans don't buy games from platinum games or sega right? So let just give them a bash.

If Kaz said so them it was 5 (fuzzy memory on the date). And I agree that licensing alone make a lot on the cost, similar problem also must exist in Sports game that the dev cost is small since most of it is interaction on previous game, but the amount of clubs and players make licenses a costly venture.

GT series producer Kazunori Yamauchi says it was a 5 year development period.  GT5 had over 1,000 licensed cars and more than 70 licensed tracks.  Not sure how much licensed music it had though.  The licensing alone would cost more than many AAA games.

Yeah that's it, there's a reason Sega didn't publish the second game and Nintendo had to step in; from the perspective of a third party publisher it just wasn't a very attractive proposition; a sequel to a game that was a commercial failure.

They buy, of course, that is why Sony refused to fund Bayonetta 2 and sale of the first on ps3 is not good to them or Sega

If Kaz said so them it was 5 (fuzzy memory on the date). And I agree that licensing alone make a lot on the cost, similar problem also must exist in Sports game that the dev cost is small since most of it is interaction on previous game, but the amount of clubs and players make licenses a costly venture.

Yep

So all games from Sega or Platinum must sell good on PS for PS owners to count as customers?? That must be the reason why Sony funded other Platinum games before and after Bayo. But sure, let's bash PS4 owners.

Yeah, and those Platinum games are? Also, your comment is exactly why Sony won't need to fund Bayonetta 2 & 3, so Nintendo get it is a good choice