I don't think so. As long as the 360 gets games, the PS3 gets games too.

You could be right if they don't have enough employees to do all the ports, but I'd think they'd cut whole titles before they cut many ports. Ports are cheaper after all.

@ psrock - the PS3 shall still get games - EA only has the rights to their sports franchises as long as they publish them on all viable platforms. I think they have a similar deal with their James Bond, LOTR an Harry Potter stuff. Even the Gamecube got pretty decent numbers of EA games, and the PS3 is definitely gonna be more successful than the GC

 That´s the same I do with square and kh but hardcore nintendo fanboys won´t leave kh alone! :/ But fuck it,I´m sure it is going to the wii just like dragon quest.

Wow I was so preoccupied with getting into MH I didn't realize these were two different threads, theirs another one on the near exact same thing. V_V

The question is a High end Wii game vs a High end HD game; which costs more to make and how much is the difference.

The answer is 1:5, this was as per gamasutra and some developers quote, also we know development for RS was 12 million we also know that development for GTA was 100mil+ thats near 1:10.

Of course the subject becomes subjective when some idiot comes in and sais "But Red Steel isn't as high a quality game as GTA." I'd respond "Then give me a Wii game", he'd respond "Har, har dib8rman see now I have you in my dasterdly web, entangled you are; see for now I will note that No game on the Wii is as massive or even remotly the same quality as GTAIV!"

To that I would reply "Oh how wrapped up I am in awe of you, now I see that no game on the Wii costs nearly as much as GTAIV! Oh what was I thinking." Then catching his stumble on logic which he cannot understand the responder notes: "Exactly so, the Wii... "

I've really gotta go play MH now so that's where that ends.

But but Red Steel cost $12 million and Gears of War $7 million...

...therefore, ALL HD DEVELOPEMENT IS CHEAPER DUN DUN DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER.

Dib8ter cracks me up. Damn so 1/5th the costs, that's good to know.

Well a QUality NHL 2010 with Motion + for starters and EA has my support, after looking at their financial results it was obvious they cannot ignore the best selling console.

cant wait till dead space get released

I don't follow the development of games on MS platform... Gears 1 cost 7 million, I'm not sure what the question is from that actually, good catch. It be because Unreal Engine 3 was created by the guys who made Gears, but I may be mistaken on that - I confuse those companies very easily as they all are the same to me. (Constantly trying to sell their engines to anyone who's willing to buy/middleware) I believe Gears worked with Unreal Engine 3, while Ubi licensed the use of Ue2.5, now this is just memory now so I could be off, but last time I checked licensing that engine isn't cheap. But I'm almost positive it couldn't have cost Ubi an near 10 million just to use that Engine.

Anyway that 1:5 ratio isn't fair actually, because it only works in a few cases, and the one case it was intended to express was only to give a rough understanding of rate of investment per dollar, the end result could be less depending on how long and how intense production is.

Also if your talking about Gears 2... then I can say that they just recycled tools to simplify production. This means the only thing they'd have to spend time on is bugs and content.