Not really.  Higher resolution means a lot more pixels to render which is a lot more CPU time and storage.  Plus, you may need more detailed models for the CGI, etc...  Could easily cost 4x as much on HD.  Not saying it always costs more, but it can.  Same with motion capture, as you may want more stickyballs for the HD.

@theRepublic

Sure, assets will be cheaper, especially graphic ones.

But if the split was, on PS3, just for example:
40M= 8M code + 25M assets + 1M CGI + 1M motion capture + 0.5M voiceovers + 4.5M marketing

it could become something like
4M code + 6.25M assets + 1M CGI + 1M motion capture + 0.5M voiceovers + 4.5M marketing
=17.25M on Wii

where I have taken half the cost for code (easier hardware, well known tools) and a fourth of the cost for assets (maybe it's even too big of a ratio here).

@jlauro

I assume that the cost of CGI is mainly in the man-hours needed to develop models, scenes, animations and effects, not in the farm rendering of pixels (nowadays setting up a render farm is quite cheap). And if you look at good CGIs on the PS2 (FF, for example), the assets are easily as detailed as the ones used on PS3/360, if only rendered at lower res. If 80% of the cost is in man-hours and 20% is in the rendering then by going 720p->480p you have about half the pixels (2.25 ratio), thus you only save 10%. But really, I doubt it's even that big.

Same with motion capture: I assume the cost is mainly staging the scenes, directing the actors, filming them, not analyzing the data. You will want to put a lot of stickballs anyway, because you don't know exactly how your models are going to be at that point of production.

The definition of the output is mostly irrelevant, with regards to art. If you want a good looking Wii game, you still have to work with the engine to create well-crafted models, with technically sound (and attractive) texture work. Technically sound artists cost about 150% as much as your average joe artist does -- and that's where the "Wii is cheaper" to develop good games argument falls flat on its face.  It may be moderately cheaper, but it's not a significant as some would like to believe.

If you want consistantly good games, you need consistantly good art. The size of the texture, etc. is immaterial. Textures are not hand-crafted, pixel-by-pixel, or if that was necessary, it'd be on the Wii, not the HD consoles. The reason "art is cheap" on Wii games, is due to the fact that they don't go out of their way to make good art, or hire good artists. It has nothing to do with the console. It has everything to do with their perceived audience, and their project's goals and budget.

Publishers need to spend more money on individual Wii projects, not more money on more Wii projects.

Where are people pulling some of these numbers from?

30-60 million for killzone 2 (really? a 30mln dollar range?)
100 million for gta 4 (supposedly)

i take it these are just speculative numbers

They're just guesswork, of course.  KZ2 was quoted at around "30 million euros" at some point, and the value of that in dollars waffles constantly.  KZ2 was in development for like 5 years, so during a large portion of that time, the euro and the dollar were mostly on even terms.  I've never seen the 100 million quote for GTA, so I can't comment on it.  It's high expense was almost all attributed to voice acting, marketing, mo-cap, and other platform-independant expenses though, I know that.  Also, its the most expensive video game ever made, to my knowledge... the ultimate extreme.  I have no idea why its ever brought up in these discussions.

Back to KZ2, if we're talking platform-driving exclusives, we should compare it to SMG, which cost around 17M, and, on top of that, is on a platform that probably had most of its engine technology in place already (as has been quoted many times in this thread) -- in other words, it would have saved huge amounts from existing engine tech at Nintendo, much like Gears of War saved with existing Unreal tech.  In the end, its cost, if started from scratch, probably would have been over 20M, maybe even close to 30M.

Also note that 10 million dollars, 7 years ago (last gen) is a fair bit more money than 10 million today.  If Wii games cost the same, or less, in current-dollars, than PS2 games did 7-years-ago-dollars, there's definately something wrong with the "Wii math" here.

Attributing cheap dev costs to the Wii platform, and not to the project instead, is a complete farce.  Why people cannot except that 3rd party offerings suck thanks to their lack of investment, is beyond me.

I was just quoting what EA said.

It is one of the more recent in a long line of statements made by developers relating to the cost of making games being less on the Wii than on the PS3 and Xbox 360. (I cited a couple from 2006 earlier in this thread when I originally referenced the EA quote but no one paid any attention to them).

Now what I cannot answer is whether it is cheaper to develop on the Wii because developers are mailing it in or because it does not have HD-quality graphics which require additional development effort.   While there have been cases of the former, I am sure that for most titles from top tier development houses, the real reason is the latter.

And before you start talking about game quality, I will fully and freely admit that the PS3 and Xbox 360 can do things that the Wii cannot. Capcom's attempt at porting over Dead Rising shows the limits of the Wii (and of Capcom's imagaination, but that is for another post). 

To put it in perspective, no one in their right mind says that an 486 can deliver the same impact as a P4. But the program on the 486 costs less because it can do less. While the difference between the Wii and the HD consoles is not nearly as much as between pre and post Pentium computers, the analogy still stands.

Mike from Morgantown

Be happy with your gaming choices or buy new ones.

It is actually around 60 million but I know certain people always disagree so I put what they think it is.  Either way, the point remains.

The cost of GTA4 actually came from someone involved in the development of the game. Search on google and I'm sure you'll find it.

I don't think you understand why the artistic assets cost more on the HD consoles ...

One of the biggest reasons why development costs are so much higher is that all of the fancy material effects that (really) account for the visual improvement from the Wii to the HD consoles need to be fed data that is (typically) hand created in the form of a texture. When you have to spend a little more time on each texture to add tiny details and have to produce several more textures the ammount of work to produce all the textures is dramatically higher.

I understand modern shader technology, trust me.

I'm suggesting that, for one thing, texture work, while difficult, is far from the majority of game development expense, and as another point, without using multi-texturing TEV stuff on the Wii, you're going to end up with a bad/old looking game.  That doesn't equate with quality.  

You're basically supporting my stance with your comment.  You don't get to have quality gaming without quality art and art technology, and artists skilled enough to use it.  There are hardly any Wii games that utilize the Wii decently -- and yep, they're doing exactly what you're stating (i.e. not doing any fancy texture work, even though its possible on the Wii).  And the quality suffers.  Its not a big mystery.