Waste of 200M dollars IMO. But i guess they made a killing off this game from all the Obsessed COD fanboys. Oh well i for one will never buy it because IW and Activision castrated the PC version
Long Live SHIO!
Waste of 200M dollars IMO. But i guess they made a killing off this game from all the Obsessed COD fanboys. Oh well i for one will never buy it because IW and Activision castrated the PC version
Long Live SHIO!
noname2200 said:
Serious question: When was the last time you've heard of a businessman turning down millions of dollars that he wouldn't have to pay back? Whatever didn't actually go to development/distribution/advertising was undoubtedly spent on hookers and blow. "Community outreach" they'll call it.
One possibility is that Naughty Dog's being heavily subsidized by Sony, which dramatically decreases their costs. Being single-platform chops off a few million as well. My guess is it's a combination of those factors, a few more I can't think of right now, and IW simply getting bloated and lazy post-MW. Edit: I forgot about their newest way of screwing PC gamers over! IWNet (or whatever the hell it's called) probably cost a ton to create as well. Fortunately, it'll stick around for future Activision games, so as to drag down other PC games to HD console levels! Not bitter at all. |
Naughty is not subsidized by Sony, they are a first party in house development house that get their entire funding from Sony. They do not worry about publishing and a large part of media advertising is out of their hand.
The development cost is simply that, the development cost.
I will agree with your opinion that ND team is much smaller thn IW. Activision would have literally been throwing money there way to ensure that the game comes out 'as expected' and I doubt they minded some extra financial padding to ensure the quality of their flagship FPS and one of their biggest revenue generator. A job that might have been done by one person could have been shared by 2 to ensure that it was done 100% right.

They should have used more of the money in they graphic department. Honestly they game doesn't too much better than COD4MW.
*Al Bundy's My Hero*


*Al Bundy For President*
Waiting On GT7!!!
PSN ID: Acidfacekiller
| waron said: MW2 ads were in many newspapers in my country andthere was crapload of tv ads. heck there was even few news on tv about launch if this game so yeah those 150mln is true. there were definitely ads for it in cinemas(how many copies they made for cinemas around the world? 3.5-4k?). about the Halo 3 campaign i mistaken it with week one earnings, but then again most of Halo advertisment was made by Pepsi/Cocacola and other companies probably for free cause it was profitable for them. if 25mln for L4D2(and that was reported by valve itself) was made as advertisment budget by valve alone then it's hard to believe that Halo 3 had 40mln budget. 40-50mln budget for game development is true too. majority of that money was spend on dedicated servers for ps3 gamers. i think that holding constantly severs for 4-5mln people cost a lot. |
I cannot believe you're actually spitting that out in a serious sentence. The majority of that money was spend on dedica-urk my throat is constricting on the absurdity.
Beyond the absurdity above sentence however, how do you account for a monthly maintenance fee as part of development cost?? Did IW decided to set out $30mil spare cash just so they can have dedicated server for the ps3 all prepaid for the next 10 years?

I think the reason MW2 cost 50 mil to develop is that the guys at IW probably command much higher salaries now especially after the success of cod4. Thats the only plausible explanation I can think of. The game uses the same old engine and costs as much/more than KZ2?
"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)
"WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler
| waron said: no wonder Activision bumped up the price of MW2. Halo 3 had 300mln ad campaign so 150mln is possible. makes me wonder how much did KZ2 cost - afterall it's the most expensive game that had the most expensive campaign out of all Sonys games. i though it was about 65-70mln budget for the whole game development and about 30-35mln campaign, but now i wouldn't be suprisd if it was 140-150mln project. heck, even Left 4 Dead 2 had like 35-50mln campaign(Valve alone spend more than 25mln on it and there's also MS money). we may have more flops on hd consoles than we previously thought. |
I agree with this post.
(xcept for the cost of the Halo 3 ad campaign which is a number ive never heard of)
Squilliam said:
Why is it reasonable that MW2 cost a heck of a lot more than UC2? Some points I think are important here! 1. The game probably has quite a large group of gameplay testers to religeously test the multiplayer aspect. They would have been testing and prototyping from day one. That's their choice though, Squil - they could just as readily have used a Beta like Uncharted 2. Plenty of people are willing to playtest for free, and even if they conducted it all internally playtesters are at the cheap end of the cost equation so far as I know 2. The game is programmed for 2 seperate console platforms and ported to the PC platform. That should only add around 10% max according to most big developers. Given CoD4 was already multi-platform I'd argue it should have been even less than 10% for MW2. Even assuming a worst case it should only have added 15% or so. But it is an additional cost so the point is fair, I just don't see evidence it should be that high. 3. IW staff probably get paid more than other companies as they are a proved commodity. Activision doesn't want the whole group of them to up and leave to go work for EA do they? Again, that's their choice. I guess its possible, although I'd expect any bigger rewards to be driven through bonuses, etc. rather than direct salary. It's a good point though, and I wonder how much the high cost was down to staff costs. 4. They use a lot of set pieces. I wonder how much work it took to make it and how much they had to throw away in the end? They probably had no compunction leaving whole segments of the game on the cutting room floor. I don't but this one, as Uncharted 2 and other games have had more set pieces than MW2, and arguably bigger ones too. TBH the SP campaign is too short for me to buy they spent a lot more adding set pieces, or threw that much away. Even if they threw away half they'd still only have developed a 10 hour game, shorter than many similar games.
In the end the figure just seems high. Uncharted cost $30 Million I believe, and obviously required a new engine, etc. from scratch. Uncharted 2 cost around $30 million too, but its clear that with the engine already there the cost of the SP must have gone down a lot and the effort to add MP/Coop took the cost back up to $30 million. With MW2 nothing that big has been added, the engine was there, etc. so the cost just seems high. I mean, it's lower than say Killzone 2, which I'd argue cost too much but I guess did deliver an amazing engine built from scratch, and even if MW2 cost $100 million it would still be very profitable. In fact, I think you're on the right track with point 3. Everyone at IW and Activision knew this was going to be massive, and I think that resulted (as it often does in any business) in a losser control of costs and effort. For the game $40 million is too high if it was developed with very tight budget and cost control - but loosen the reins a little, and I can then see costs creeping to around $40 million.
|
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
I think people do take these publically revealed budget figures too literally. It's no use to over-analyze it like they do.
If they say $40 mill for MW2 it could as well be $30 mill or $50 mill. If they say $30 mill Uncharted it could be $40 mill, Gears of War $12 mill could be $20 mill and GT5 $60 mill could be $90 mill.
| Slimebeast said: I think people do take these publically revealed budget figures too literally. It's no use to over-analyze it like they do. |
I agree in principle, but when you get a quote that says 40 to 50 then normally you know the number must be in that range. You don't say 40 to 50 when you mean 30 or 60, if you see what I mean.
Unless the quote is simply being silly then it has to be between 40 to 50. Also, some developers have been pretty explicit, ND for example, so I see no reason to assume Uncharted games cost much more or less than they've released.
Whichever way you cut it, MW2 is a money machine whether it cost 40 or 80 million - I'm just surprised at the cost vs the game, kind of like seeing Star Trek and seeing the budget was $150 million. I mean, the ships, etc. looked expensive, but almost all the interiors were in a Budwiser plant, so I just wonder where the heck all the money went. Same principle for MW2 - I compare it to my copy of MW and wonder where approx $40 million went.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
| mibuokami said: Naughty is not subsidized by Sony, they are a first party in house development house that get their entire funding from Sony. They do not worry about publishing and a large part of media advertising is out of their hand. |
Ack, right, I mistook them for Insomniac. My bad! I stand by the rest of my post, though.
| richardhutnik said: That is business. You can't just do a game, and make it real good, and just release it without marketing. The game gets lost in the shuffle if you do that. |
Marvelous begs to differ!