By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How much did Killzone 2 development cost?

NinjaKido on 01 March 2009
Max King of the Wild said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Infamy79 said:
Procrastinato said:
rocketpig said:
DMeisterJ said:

First off, it was not in production for five years. Even if we take the E3 2005 target render for a start time, it'd still only be 3.75 years, so you're off by at least a year, but GG was working on Killzone: Liberation until 2006, and this is when their team was < 40 people, so it's not unlikely that Killzone 2 was not being worked on until completion, or near completion of KZ: Liberation.

That trailer didn't appear out of thin air. A team of programmers and artists had to design it, direct it, render it, etc. Work on the game almost assuredly began before E3 2005. Use some common sense. New character designs have to be created, new environments, new everything. They don't just reuse the old tools from the previous game to make a new trailer.

With that said, the entire team probably wasn't engaged on KZ2 in 2005. As you said, the PSP game was in the works at that time.

 

Actually, pre-rendered trailers are usually farmed off to pre-render art studios, with some limited in-game (or future in-game) assets (models, textures) to use as a basis.  No programmers likely worked on that 2005 trailer at all, other than indirectly, advising the artists/designers on what would be possible.

 

If anything, outsourcing the CGI development of the trailor would have cost them more. Had they done it in house they would have only had to pay salaries that they are already paying. If another company did it then they are hardly going to be a charity. They'd still have to pay their own developers PLUS other staff in the business, rent, computers, software, etc, so they are going to put a profit margin on it, usually it's around 100% mark up.

At the end of the day, it still would have cost GG a significant amount of money to do it 

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

they can not be sued for false advertisement

They could be fined and I think they can be sued actualy, probably by class action lawsuit.

 



Around the Network
rocketpig on 01 March 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Infamy79 said:
Procrastinato said:
rocketpig said:
DMeisterJ said:

First off, it was not in production for five years. Even if we take the E3 2005 target render for a start time, it'd still only be 3.75 years, so you're off by at least a year, but GG was working on Killzone: Liberation until 2006, and this is when their team was < 40 people, so it's not unlikely that Killzone 2 was not being worked on until completion, or near completion of KZ: Liberation.

That trailer didn't appear out of thin air. A team of programmers and artists had to design it, direct it, render it, etc. Work on the game almost assuredly began before E3 2005. Use some common sense. New character designs have to be created, new environments, new everything. They don't just reuse the old tools from the previous game to make a new trailer.

With that said, the entire team probably wasn't engaged on KZ2 in 2005. As you said, the PSP game was in the works at that time.

 

Actually, pre-rendered trailers are usually farmed off to pre-render art studios, with some limited in-game (or future in-game) assets (models, textures) to use as a basis.  No programmers likely worked on that 2005 trailer at all, other than indirectly, advising the artists/designers on what would be possible.

 

If anything, outsourcing the CGI development of the trailor would have cost them more. Had they done it in house they would have only had to pay salaries that they are already paying. If another company did it then they are hardly going to be a charity. They'd still have to pay their own developers PLUS other staff in the business, rent, computers, software, etc, so they are going to put a profit margin on it, usually it's around 100% mark up.

At the end of the day, it still would have cost GG a significant amount of money to do it 

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

Oh, come on. That would be like suing Apple for not using real footage for their in-screen iPod advertisements. Get over it, everyone does it. Silly.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Max King of the Wild on 01 March 2009

^ lol. ok good luck with that. why dont you start the suit YOU CAN BECOME RICH!



NinjaKido on 01 March 2009
Max King of the Wild said:
^ lol. ok good luck with that. why dont you start the suit YOU CAN BECOME RICH!

 

I didn't say you'd get alot of money for it , but that it's possible to take legal action. You might not even do it for monetary reasons but maybe to damage to the companies image because of your inconveniences.



MaxwellGT2000 on 01 March 2009
rocketpig said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

Oh, come on. That would be like suing Apple for not using real footage for their in-screen iPod advertisements. Get over it, everyone does it. Silly.

 

A woman sued McDonalds over a hot pickle burning her lip, people will sue over anything these days, and I wouldn't put it past someone to come up with that idea.

 



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

Around the Network
Infamy79 on 01 March 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Infamy79 said:
Procrastinato said:
rocketpig said:
DMeisterJ said:

First off, it was not in production for five years. Even if we take the E3 2005 target render for a start time, it'd still only be 3.75 years, so you're off by at least a year, but GG was working on Killzone: Liberation until 2006, and this is when their team was < 40 people, so it's not unlikely that Killzone 2 was not being worked on until completion, or near completion of KZ: Liberation.

That trailer didn't appear out of thin air. A team of programmers and artists had to design it, direct it, render it, etc. Work on the game almost assuredly began before E3 2005. Use some common sense. New character designs have to be created, new environments, new everything. They don't just reuse the old tools from the previous game to make a new trailer.

With that said, the entire team probably wasn't engaged on KZ2 in 2005. As you said, the PSP game was in the works at that time.

 

Actually, pre-rendered trailers are usually farmed off to pre-render art studios, with some limited in-game (or future in-game) assets (models, textures) to use as a basis.  No programmers likely worked on that 2005 trailer at all, other than indirectly, advising the artists/designers on what would be possible.

 

If anything, outsourcing the CGI development of the trailor would have cost them more. Had they done it in house they would have only had to pay salaries that they are already paying. If another company did it then they are hardly going to be a charity. They'd still have to pay their own developers PLUS other staff in the business, rent, computers, software, etc, so they are going to put a profit margin on it, usually it's around 100% mark up.

At the end of the day, it still would have cost GG a significant amount of money to do it 

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

Yeah sorry you're on your own with that one

I don't remember anything claiming it was "in game" in the first place

 



Never argue with idiots
They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience

NinjaKido on 01 March 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
rocketpig said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

Oh, come on. That would be like suing Apple for not using real footage for their in-screen iPod advertisements. Get over it, everyone does it. Silly.

 

A woman sued McDonalds over a hot pickle burning her lip, people will sue over anything these days, and I wouldn't put it past someone to come up with that idea.

 

Well suing for false advertisement isn't new at all , there are circumstances where false advertisement could have more serious effects .

 

"Airborne Agrees to Pay $23.3 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over False Advertising of its "Miracle Cold Buster""

http://consumerist.com/363857/false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit-how-to-get-your-airborne-refund

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200803032.html

 

 

 

 



rocketpig on 01 March 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
rocketpig said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

Oh, come on. That would be like suing Apple for not using real footage for their in-screen iPod advertisements. Get over it, everyone does it. Silly.

 

A woman sued McDonalds over a hot pickle burning her lip, people will sue over anything these days, and I wouldn't put it past someone to come up with that idea.

 

I've never heard of the pickle incident but I'd love to see a link.

As for the McDonald's coffee incident, that's another story and most people don't read enough into it to understand why the jury awarded the woman what they did.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Max King of the Wild on 01 March 2009

someone sued pepsi because in their advertisement they said if you gather like 8 billion points you could get a jet someone got the points and redeemed them did not get the jet sued and guess what he lost



MaxwellGT2000 on 01 March 2009
rocketpig said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
rocketpig said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:

 

That and they could be sued for false advertisement of "in game" graphics, which what I think seems more likely, where they made a target build on PC which was an ingame engine and then tried their best to put that look on PS3.

Oh, come on. That would be like suing Apple for not using real footage for their in-screen iPod advertisements. Get over it, everyone does it. Silly.

 

A woman sued McDonalds over a hot pickle burning her lip, people will sue over anything these days, and I wouldn't put it past someone to come up with that idea.

 

I've never heard of the pickle incident but I'd love to see a link.

As for the McDonald's coffee incident, that's another story and most people don't read enough into it to understand why the jury awarded the woman what they did.

 

 

It was a long time ago to be honest, I'd love to have a link to but that was at least 8 years and 5 computers ago :P



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000