At least 60 mill, as high as 100. I've hears rumors of $100m, but I don't think it'd quite be that high...maybe.

And the serious work on Final Fantasy XIII wasn't started until later on in development. 

Which is largely irrevent... since it takes MANY more hours to create HD content then corresponding SD content.

There is no way the game cost the same.

Look at the Gran Turismo games for example.

It's very safe to say FF13 cost more then the PS2 FFs.   If cost has exploded primairly because of HD graphics for every other game...

Why would Final Fantasy games be any different?

Look, I'm not saying it cost less, but just that I don't expect it to be double Final Fantasy XII or anything like that. 40-60 million seems pretty reasonable to me.

Based on what though.  If everything else, cost roughly double(or in some cases triple/quadruple)... why wouldn't FF13?

FF13 one of the franchises that considers graphics one of it's big cornerstones?  I don't know what FF12 cost, but double would probably be a baseline vs other games.

Because those last generation games were not in development for 3-4 years with huge teams on them like Final Fantasy X and XII were.

And Final Fantasy XII cost $40 million to make.

Years don't matter so much as manhours.

This is the longest FF game in while right?  Something like 60 hours I think it was? 

That means it needed more content. 

HD content takes more time then SD content... by a lot.

So if it took a similar amout on time... that means...

A) More staff

B) and/or Current staff worked more = Overtime

This would actually suggest it cost more not less.

Your making a better arguement that it did cost 80+ million then that it doesn't cost 80+ million.

Also, another thing to consider.... because of it's length... that means more of the budget and man hours have to put in graphics, and less in base coding like engine and battle design and such.

Which suggests the % of increase would be higher then normal rather then lower then normal.

Unlike COD4 for example where you need a few new maps, a few character textures....

for a game like FF13... you need TONS of graphical assets.

In general... it just doesn't make sense for things to be the way you want them.

Everything points to the game being above the average increase in HD cost.  Not below.

This is the longest FF game in a while? Companies spread BS about the length of their game all the time. I highly, highly doubt it will take me or you 60 hours to beat the game. I'll probably do it under 40.

Companies are pretty consistant about that though, no?  FF12 wasn't sold as 60 hours to my knowledge.

Actually it'll probably take me 60 hours to beat the game though.  I'm a bit of a compeltionist.

I don't have to do everything... but i do have to do everything I see... and I do have to level up all my characters to the same level.

Also I never use consumable items.

There is nothing out their suggesting that it shouldn't fit the regular development cost curve... and plenty to suggest that it should even be over the usual curve.

Even if you assume the game is exactly the same.  Say they didn't make Ps2 FF12, and made FF12 in HD... FF12 HD would have cost more then double production because it was longer then your average game and used way more visual asets.

The only way for it to not be double, would be if it was significantly smaller in scope then FF12.  Have you seen anything to suggest this is the case?