hanafuda said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: Dallinor said: Too Human is possibly the biggest bomb this generation given it's rumoured budget. We can all speculate as to the 'hype level' attached to either project, but in reailty when the production and marketing costs far exceed the overall revenue of a project, it constitutes as a bomb/flop. Not when it fails to meet critical expectation or 'hype' (A project can still be a financial success without those). It would seem as though Too Human comes off the worse to wear in the financial department, ergo making it the bigger 'bomb' of the two. I guess that is open to interpretation. Given the game was in development with Sony assistance on the PS1, Nintendo assistance on the Gamecube, then finally got out the door with Microsoft assistance on the Xbox 360, it's fair to say this game bombed hardest for Nintendo and Sony, as they saw literally zero return on their investment. What? I doubt Sony or Nintendo gave SK any money at all. Wasn't it published by Microsoft?  It doesn't even matter what console it was on. The game had an astronomical budget and it bombed, badly. Haze probably had an average budget, judging by the graphics. It has sold 410,000 and has a chance to break even. It was going to be published for Gamecube by Nintendo and was going to be on the PS1 (published by Sony I think).  A great deal of the budget came from the early years and was funded by Sony, Nintendo and SK back in the day.  Microsoft themselves might well break even on this game. And almost certainly on the trilogy. Can I have links for the Nintendo and Sony publishing this game?  I doubt most of the budget was for the PS1 and gamecube period. HD games cost way more to develop, compared with PS1 and gamecube games.  Either SK, Microsoft or both lost out big on this game. There is no denying that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Human#Development_history Ten years of development and Microsoft has only been involved in three of them. It is believable that SK lost out big on this game, it is not believable that Microsoft did.  Especially with two, far cheaper to make due to sequel status, more games on the way. Hardware manufacturers don't pay third parties to make games for them. Of course, there are exceptions, but I don't see any evidence of such an exception here. Microsoft did, however, publish the game.  Want to see what Wiki has to say about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher 'A video game publisher is a company that publishes video games that they have either developed internally or have had developed by a video game developer. As with book publishers or publishers of DVD movies, video game publishers are responsible for their product's manufacturing and marketing, including market research and all aspects of advertising. They usually finance the development, sometimes by paying a video game developer (the publisher calls this external development) and sometimes by paying an internal staff of developers called a studio. The large video game publishers also distribute the games they publish, while some smaller publishers instead hire distribution companies (or larger video game publishers) to distribute the games they publish. Other functions usually performed by the publisher include deciding on and paying for any license that the game may utilize; paying for localization; layout, printing, and possibly the writing of the user manual; and the creation of graphic design elements such as the box design. Large publishers may also attempt to boost efficiency across all internal and external development teams by providing services such as sound design and code packages for commonly needed functionality. Because the publisher usually finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk with a staff of producers or project managers to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development, and assist as necessary. Most video games created by an external video game developer are paid for with periodic advances on royalties. These advances are paid when the developer reaches certain stages of development, called milestones.'. Ouch.

Self pawnage?

At the very least Nintendo had a similar relationship with SK for TH too the one MS has.  I think Sony did too but I'll try to find another link for that. 

All you proved is that for the last three years Microsoft has had a hand in funding TH, three years out of ten, which was my original point anyway.

So Nintendo and probably Sony lost a shitload for a game they never released, and Microsoft will sell half a million copies on a game with three years development, probably breaking even and with all art assets, engines and story in place for the next two games.

 

I think they have to do the trilogy... it's not like the 2nd game is going to cost that much they already have most of the assets and they can just tweak the engine and push the console more.

DMeisterJ said: disolitude said: Too Human wasn't hyped. the only reason why its in the public eye is because of Dyack and his flapping mouth. Most people knew that they have a long road ahead of them when designing that game looking at the demos and E3 booths. Haze automatically got a "system seller" brand name beacuse its A. a PS3 exclusive FPS and B. Designed by goldeneye experts Free radical. In any case, why don't we forget about both and concentrate on howmany overhyped and crappy Wii games sell million copies? So are you seriously telling me that Too Human wasn't hyped like Haze?  I mean, there had to be a lot of hype surrounding this game.  Microsoft signed up for the trilogy of the game before the first one even hit.  They did it with Mass Effect too, and we can all agree that game was hyped correct?  So how come Too Human "wasn't hyped"?  It just seems weird that people would say that Too Human isn't hyped when it obviously was. Again, how was Haze a system seller?  The Haze hype died after IGN's preview, and the second delay (in March).

DmiesterJ I normally respect your posts but I have to say I do disagree. Why? Purely because I remember seeing 3 different Haze adverts here in the UK probably all in all about 20 times. Same with Mass Effect. However I still have never seen one for Too Human. The local Game shops also have not got much in the way of Too Human stuff up around the store, where normally for hyped games there are posters and everything. It's quite wierd because Too Human I think is better than Diablo. Same breed just better.

too human was miles better than haze,
haze wasnt even in HD it was 540p upscaled but too human was 720p and 60fps and the graphics in too human were way better than haze and the story :P

starcraft said: hanafuda said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: Dallinor said: Too Human is possibly the biggest bomb this generation given it's rumoured budget. We can all speculate as to the 'hype level' attached to either project, but in reailty when the production and marketing costs far exceed the overall revenue of a project, it constitutes as a bomb/flop. Not when it fails to meet critical expectation or 'hype' (A project can still be a financial success without those). It would seem as though Too Human comes off the worse to wear in the financial department, ergo making it the bigger 'bomb' of the two. I guess that is open to interpretation. Given the game was in development with Sony assistance on the PS1, Nintendo assistance on the Gamecube, then finally got out the door with Microsoft assistance on the Xbox 360, it's fair to say this game bombed hardest for Nintendo and Sony, as they saw literally zero return on their investment. What? I doubt Sony or Nintendo gave SK any money at all. Wasn't it published by Microsoft?  It doesn't even matter what console it was on. The game had an astronomical budget and it bombed, badly. Haze probably had an average budget, judging by the graphics. It has sold 410,000 and has a chance to break even. It was going to be published for Gamecube by Nintendo and was going to be on the PS1 (published by Sony I think).  A great deal of the budget came from the early years and was funded by Sony, Nintendo and SK back in the day.  Microsoft themselves might well break even on this game. And almost certainly on the trilogy. Can I have links for the Nintendo and Sony publishing this game?  I doubt most of the budget was for the PS1 and gamecube period. HD games cost way more to develop, compared with PS1 and gamecube games.  Either SK, Microsoft or both lost out big on this game. There is no denying that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Human#Development_history Ten years of development and Microsoft has only been involved in three of them. It is believable that SK lost out big on this game, it is not believable that Microsoft did.  Especially with two, far cheaper to make due to sequel status, more games on the way. Hardware manufacturers don't pay third parties to make games for them. Of course, there are exceptions, but I don't see any evidence of such an exception here. Microsoft did, however, publish the game.  Want to see what Wiki has to say about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher 'A video game publisher is a company that publishes video games that they have either developed internally or have had developed by a video game developer. As with book publishers or publishers of DVD movies, video game publishers are responsible for their product's manufacturing and marketing, including market research and all aspects of advertising. They usually finance the development, sometimes by paying a video game developer (the publisher calls this external development) and sometimes by paying an internal staff of developers called a studio. The large video game publishers also distribute the games they publish, while some smaller publishers instead hire distribution companies (or larger video game publishers) to distribute the games they publish. Other functions usually performed by the publisher include deciding on and paying for any license that the game may utilize; paying for localization; layout, printing, and possibly the writing of the user manual; and the creation of graphic design elements such as the box design. Large publishers may also attempt to boost efficiency across all internal and external development teams by providing services such as sound design and code packages for commonly needed functionality. Because the publisher usually finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk with a staff of producers or project managers to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development, and assist as necessary. Most video games created by an external video game developer are paid for with periodic advances on royalties. These advances are paid when the developer reaches certain stages of development, called milestones.'. Ouch.  Self pawnage? At the very least Nintendo had a similar relationship with SK for TH too the one MS has.  I think Sony did too but I'll try to find another link for that.  All you proved is that for the last three years Microsoft has had a hand in funding TH, three years out of ten, which was my original point anyway. So Nintendo and probably Sony lost a shitload for a game they never released, and Microsoft will sell half a million copies on a game with three years development, probably breaking even and with all art assets, engines and story in place for the next two games.

3 years of development on a HD console, The Unreal Engine fiasco Which, in the companies press release, they state has having caused them "serious losses", then overall production and marketing costs.

Nintendo and Sony probably didn't lose all that much (if anything). Wikipedia states that Too Human was only ever in the 'prototype' stage on the Gamecube, and that Silicon Knights devoted most of their time developing 'Eternal Darkness' and 'MGS Twin Snakes' while with Nintendo.

Dyack confirms this in an interview with Gamasutra:

Dyack : "Originally, we were working on it for PSone. When we became a second party for Nintendo, we stopped. We did some earlier prototyping on the GameCube, but we then went full dedication to Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes. When we went our separate ways with Nintendo, we talked to some friends in Microsoft."

There doesn't seem to be any available evidence as to Sony making any sort of publishing deal with Silicon Knights. It seems they were simply a third party studio making a title for the platform when they got noticed and then picked up by Nintendo.

It's logical to assume that a very large portion of the rumoured budget was spent with Microsoft's cash.

Who is to say there will still be another two games? After the reception and sales of the first, Microsoft will have to think hard about giving the next two projects the green light.

Dallinor said: starcraft said: hanafuda said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: Dallinor said: Too Human is possibly the biggest bomb this generation given it's rumoured budget. We can all speculate as to the 'hype level' attached to either project, but in reailty when the production and marketing costs far exceed the overall revenue of a project, it constitutes as a bomb/flop. Not when it fails to meet critical expectation or 'hype' (A project can still be a financial success without those). It would seem as though Too Human comes off the worse to wear in the financial department, ergo making it the bigger 'bomb' of the two. I guess that is open to interpretation. Given the game was in development with Sony assistance on the PS1, Nintendo assistance on the Gamecube, then finally got out the door with Microsoft assistance on the Xbox 360, it's fair to say this game bombed hardest for Nintendo and Sony, as they saw literally zero return on their investment. What? I doubt Sony or Nintendo gave SK any money at all. Wasn't it published by Microsoft?  It doesn't even matter what console it was on. The game had an astronomical budget and it bombed, badly. Haze probably had an average budget, judging by the graphics. It has sold 410,000 and has a chance to break even. It was going to be published for Gamecube by Nintendo and was going to be on the PS1 (published by Sony I think).  A great deal of the budget came from the early years and was funded by Sony, Nintendo and SK back in the day.  Microsoft themselves might well break even on this game. And almost certainly on the trilogy. Can I have links for the Nintendo and Sony publishing this game?  I doubt most of the budget was for the PS1 and gamecube period. HD games cost way more to develop, compared with PS1 and gamecube games.  Either SK, Microsoft or both lost out big on this game. There is no denying that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Human#Development_history Ten years of development and Microsoft has only been involved in three of them. It is believable that SK lost out big on this game, it is not believable that Microsoft did.  Especially with two, far cheaper to make due to sequel status, more games on the way. Hardware manufacturers don't pay third parties to make games for them. Of course, there are exceptions, but I don't see any evidence of such an exception here. Microsoft did, however, publish the game.  Want to see what Wiki has to say about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher 'A video game publisher is a company that publishes video games that they have either developed internally or have had developed by a video game developer. As with book publishers or publishers of DVD movies, video game publishers are responsible for their product's manufacturing and marketing, including market research and all aspects of advertising. They usually finance the development, sometimes by paying a video game developer (the publisher calls this external development) and sometimes by paying an internal staff of developers called a studio. The large video game publishers also distribute the games they publish, while some smaller publishers instead hire distribution companies (or larger video game publishers) to distribute the games they publish. Other functions usually performed by the publisher include deciding on and paying for any license that the game may utilize; paying for localization; layout, printing, and possibly the writing of the user manual; and the creation of graphic design elements such as the box design. Large publishers may also attempt to boost efficiency across all internal and external development teams by providing services such as sound design and code packages for commonly needed functionality. Because the publisher usually finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk with a staff of producers or project managers to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development, and assist as necessary. Most video games created by an external video game developer are paid for with periodic advances on royalties. These advances are paid when the developer reaches certain stages of development, called milestones.'. Ouch.  Self pawnage? At the very least Nintendo had a similar relationship with SK for TH too the one MS has.  I think Sony did too but I'll try to find another link for that.  All you proved is that for the last three years Microsoft has had a hand in funding TH, three years out of ten, which was my original point anyway. So Nintendo and probably Sony lost a shitload for a game they never released, and Microsoft will sell half a million copies on a game with three years development, probably breaking even and with all art assets, engines and story in place for the next two games. 3 years of development on a HD console, The Unreal Engine fiasco Which, in the companies press release, they state has having caused them "serious losses", then overall production and marketing costs. Nintendo and Sony probably didn't lose all that much (if anything). Wikipedia states that Too Human was only ever in the 'prototype' stage on the Gamecube, and that Silicon Knights devoted most of their time developing 'Eternal Darkness' and 'MGS Twin Snakes' while with Nintendo. Dyack confirms this in an interview with Gamasutra: Dyack : "Originally, we were working on it for PSone. When we became a second party for Nintendo, we stopped. We did some earlier prototyping on the GameCube, but we then went full dedication to Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes. When we went our separate ways with Nintendo, we talked to some friends in Microsoft." There doesn't seem to be any available evidence as to Sony making any sort of publishing deal with Silicon Knights. It seems they were simply a third party studio making a title for the platform when they got noticed and then picked up by Nintendo. It's logical to assume that a very large portion of the rumoured budget was spent with Microsoft's cash. Who is to say there will still be another two games? After the reception and sales of the first, Microsoft will have to think hard about giving the next two projects the green light.

"Logical to assume?"  Those "serious losses" you are talking about were specifically and repeatedely designated by Microsoft as SK's problem.

A game that already had it's story, themes, style and perhaps even a great deal of technical artifacts available wouldn't require more than 4-500k in sales to be profitable for the publisher.

After all, I am not arguing that SK or Nintendo didn't lose money, clearly they did.

But it is unlikely that Microsoft will.

 

selnor said: DMeisterJ said: disolitude said: Too Human wasn't hyped. the only reason why its in the public eye is because of Dyack and his flapping mouth. Most people knew that they have a long road ahead of them when designing that game looking at the demos and E3 booths. Haze automatically got a "system seller" brand name beacuse its A. a PS3 exclusive FPS and B. Designed by goldeneye experts Free radical. In any case, why don't we forget about both and concentrate on howmany overhyped and crappy Wii games sell million copies? So are you seriously telling me that Too Human wasn't hyped like Haze?  I mean, there had to be a lot of hype surrounding this game.  Microsoft signed up for the trilogy of the game before the first one even hit.  They did it with Mass Effect too, and we can all agree that game was hyped correct?  So how come Too Human "wasn't hyped"?  It just seems weird that people would say that Too Human isn't hyped when it obviously was. Again, how was Haze a system seller?  The Haze hype died after IGN's preview, and the second delay (in March).   DmiesterJ I normally respect your posts but I have to say I do disagree. Why? Purely because I remember seeing 3 different Haze adverts here in the UK probably all in all about 20 times. Same with Mass Effect. However I still have never seen one for Too Human. The local Game shops also have not got much in the way of Too Human stuff up around the store, where normally for hyped games there are posters and everything. It's quite wierd because Too Human I think is better than Diablo. Same breed just better.

Better then Diablo?!?!?! Hell no! There is no game out there which is even close to Diablo.

I found it hard to put some logic in TH mele gameplay, so I switch to commando class. Now gameplay is more tactical as it should be. The only problem is that you can't avoid close combat all the time and from time to time you go back to "stick smashing".

 

starcraft said: Dallinor said: starcraft said: hanafuda said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: tombi123 said: starcraft said: Dallinor said: Too Human is possibly the biggest bomb this generation given it's rumoured budget. We can all speculate as to the 'hype level' attached to either project, but in reailty when the production and marketing costs far exceed the overall revenue of a project, it constitutes as a bomb/flop. Not when it fails to meet critical expectation or 'hype' (A project can still be a financial success without those). It would seem as though Too Human comes off the worse to wear in the financial department, ergo making it the bigger 'bomb' of the two. I guess that is open to interpretation. Given the game was in development with Sony assistance on the PS1, Nintendo assistance on the Gamecube, then finally got out the door with Microsoft assistance on the Xbox 360, it's fair to say this game bombed hardest for Nintendo and Sony, as they saw literally zero return on their investment. What? I doubt Sony or Nintendo gave SK any money at all. Wasn't it published by Microsoft?  It doesn't even matter what console it was on. The game had an astronomical budget and it bombed, badly. Haze probably had an average budget, judging by the graphics. It has sold 410,000 and has a chance to break even. It was going to be published for Gamecube by Nintendo and was going to be on the PS1 (published by Sony I think).  A great deal of the budget came from the early years and was funded by Sony, Nintendo and SK back in the day.  Microsoft themselves might well break even on this game. And almost certainly on the trilogy. Can I have links for the Nintendo and Sony publishing this game?  I doubt most of the budget was for the PS1 and gamecube period. HD games cost way more to develop, compared with PS1 and gamecube games.  Either SK, Microsoft or both lost out big on this game. There is no denying that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Human#Development_history Ten years of development and Microsoft has only been involved in three of them. It is believable that SK lost out big on this game, it is not believable that Microsoft did.  Especially with two, far cheaper to make due to sequel status, more games on the way. Hardware manufacturers don't pay third parties to make games for them. Of course, there are exceptions, but I don't see any evidence of such an exception here. Microsoft did, however, publish the game.  Want to see what Wiki has to say about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher 'A video game publisher is a company that publishes video games that they have either developed internally or have had developed by a video game developer. As with book publishers or publishers of DVD movies, video game publishers are responsible for their product's manufacturing and marketing, including market research and all aspects of advertising. They usually finance the development, sometimes by paying a video game developer (the publisher calls this external development) and sometimes by paying an internal staff of developers called a studio. The large video game publishers also distribute the games they publish, while some smaller publishers instead hire distribution companies (or larger video game publishers) to distribute the games they publish. Other functions usually performed by the publisher include deciding on and paying for any license that the game may utilize; paying for localization; layout, printing, and possibly the writing of the user manual; and the creation of graphic design elements such as the box design. Large publishers may also attempt to boost efficiency across all internal and external development teams by providing services such as sound design and code packages for commonly needed functionality. Because the publisher usually finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk with a staff of producers or project managers to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development, and assist as necessary. Most video games created by an external video game developer are paid for with periodic advances on royalties. These advances are paid when the developer reaches certain stages of development, called milestones.'. Ouch.  Self pawnage? At the very least Nintendo had a similar relationship with SK for TH too the one MS has.  I think Sony did too but I'll try to find another link for that.  All you proved is that for the last three years Microsoft has had a hand in funding TH, three years out of ten, which was my original point anyway. So Nintendo and probably Sony lost a shitload for a game they never released, and Microsoft will sell half a million copies on a game with three years development, probably breaking even and with all art assets, engines and story in place for the next two games. 3 years of development on a HD console, The Unreal Engine fiasco Which, in the companies press release, they state has having caused them "serious losses", then overall production and marketing costs. Nintendo and Sony probably didn't lose all that much (if anything). Wikipedia states that Too Human was only ever in the 'prototype' stage on the Gamecube, and that Silicon Knights devoted most of their time developing 'Eternal Darkness' and 'MGS Twin Snakes' while with Nintendo. Dyack confirms this in an interview with Gamasutra: Dyack : "Originally, we were working on it for PSone. When we became a second party for Nintendo, we stopped. We did some earlier prototyping on the GameCube, but we then went full dedication to Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes. When we went our separate ways with Nintendo, we talked to some friends in Microsoft." There doesn't seem to be any available evidence as to Sony making any sort of publishing deal with Silicon Knights. It seems they were simply a third party studio making a title for the platform when they got noticed and then picked up by Nintendo. It's logical to assume that a very large portion of the rumoured budget was spent with Microsoft's cash. Who is to say there will still be another two games? After the reception and sales of the first, Microsoft will have to think hard about giving the next two projects the green light. "Logical to assume?"  Those "serious losses" you are talking about were specifically and repeatedely designated by Microsoft as SK's problem. A game that already had it's story, themes, style and perhaps even a great deal of technical artifacts available wouldn't require more than 4-500k in sales to be profitable for the publisher. After all, I am not arguing that SK or Nintendo didn't lose money, clearly they did. But it is unlikely that Microsoft will.

 

Can I have a link showing Microsoft not extending the budget of Too human given the engine problems? In SK's suit filed against Epic they mention that funds were drying up at the time of the engine fiasco, and until they picked an engine to replace the Unreal one, or continued to use it, they were going to be without funds from Microsoft. As the engine problems delayed the team developing the game, it's logical to assume that it cost Microsoft as the publisher money to have the development schedule of the game increased.

"A game that already had it's story, themes, style and perhaps even a great deal of technical artifacts available wouldn't require more than 4-500k in sales to be profitable for the publisher."

The story actually changed completely from it's initial state, to the current one. Dyack also hints at other changes too:

Dyack: " It's changed tremendously. A lot of the stuff that's out there isn't relevant anymore. But we don't want to talk about details."

Of the 'themes and style' what exactly are you reffering to? New artwork was commissioned for the Too Human once development began on the 360 version. It seems like SK didn't cut corners, and basically went through the same development process as any other high profile HD game. In fact, my assumption would be that even though initial development started over 10 years ago, SK bascially had to start from scratch on the 360.

 

So over 3 years development, a rumoured 100 million dollar budget, no links connecting any monetary transactions between SK and Sony, Too Human remaining in a prototype stage on the Gamecube while they developed other games, then it landing on the 360 where it finally saw a full development cycle and a release.

If one is to simply look at the timeline above, taking into consideration that development is at present more expensive then ever, it's logical to assume the exact point in that timeline where the greatest portion of the budget was spent.

As Tombi already stated: "Either SK, Microsoft or both lost out big on this game. There is no denying that."

My bet would be a Microsoft footing the larger portion of that bill though, as I don't see SK as having 10's of millions in cash reserves.

starcraft said: Self pawnage? At the very least Nintendo had a similar relationship with SK for TH too the one MS has.  I think Sony did too but I'll try to find another link for that.  All you proved is that for the last three years Microsoft has had a hand in funding TH, three years out of ten, which was my original point anyway. So Nintendo and probably Sony lost a shitload for a game they never released, and Microsoft will sell half a million copies on a game with three years development, probably breaking even and with all art assets, engines and story in place for the next two games.

So now you are saying that Nintendo and Sony were publishing this game when they had it?

I'd like to see some proof.

Even if they did, then they both made the smart move, and dumped it.

 

 

Wow.

360 fans do not want to believe that Too Human tanked, and tanked hard.

Good thing I decided not to bring logic in this thread anymore, as it's treaded like the plague, no one listens to it.

Keep trying though Dallinor, maybe you can get through to these people.