Eh, I get the same thing. The only way I can see my own table is by editing it. I suppose, if you respond, you can see it.

Any table experts who can throw me a bone, here? I have no idea how to show the whole table.

I would turn it into a picture and then host the picture on an image hosting site.  People could then right click on a thumbnail placed in the thread to see the table in all its glory.

That really is your best option with that table.... I am good with the table function on this site...
but that thing is way to wide to ever fit on here whatever you do to it

Yea, I'm not able to see much of the table though your assumptions seem correct.

i doubt 265 people worked on that... whats your source?

I see no numbers in this table!

The chart is cut off, but, the info is interesting nonetheless.

Very good dev budget estimations!

I'd say you're estimating Stranglehold, Crackdown and Far Cry 3 a lil bit too high though.

My argument is as follows:
The team size numbers provided by the devs themselves should be taken with a grain of salt (and I'm sure you do). I'd guess there is a risk that some big studios mite include all sorts of random people that have been involved with the production and are named in the credits, even people that shouldn't normally be regarded as team members - like external voice actors, hired researchers and expertise, recording technicians, marketing & packaging staff, people involved with the logistics and whatnot. Some of these should be counted under "outsourcing", while some should probably more be regarded as personel of the publishing department of the company rather than members of the dev team.

Also, big multi-project studios like Ubisoft Montreal probably have a bigger internal flow of dev staff working simultaneously on several projects, guys who are helping out with little things here and there on multiple games at the same time. Thus the total developer figure that is reported becomes artifically higher.

@Slimebeast:

I'd been using 2/3rds * reported peak, and then $100K per year/dev. for estimates. After some pondering yesterday, I think something closer to 0.6 * peak would be closer for HD budgets.  I seriously doubt its as low as 0.5 * peak, on average, though. It will vary widely, over a zillion variables, so averaging is the best I can do.

The Strangehold article actually states that its budget was "in the tens of millions", which implies over 20 million, and my estimates would put it in the 25-27 million range... I think that number is likely to be pretty close.

With regards to Ubisoft Montreal, I kknow some bit about them, and yes I agree that they are going to not only share loads of personnel, but also that they tend to be more art-heavy, and less engineer-heavy, with their staff, which drops costs a little per-person. They also tend to overstaff their projects, however, and these reported numbers support that. $40M is probably a bit high, but I think something in the low 30s is very likely for Far Cry 2.

I shouldn't say they "overstaff" -- they just have a different approach than most devs, who tend to understaff, and expect their staff to work crazier and crazier hours as the project goes on. Ubisoft throws (alot) more people at a project as it nears completion, and then moves them somewhere else. They make a lot of great stuff there, IMO, so obviously they're doing a good job.

Is this magazine EDGE, per chance?