Why some people always claim that HD Consoles generate the loss for 3rd party developers. Why are they focusing on the HD consoles if its such a bad buisness.

It seems like a myth not reality. has someone actually NUMBERS or anything else to support this claim ? Numbers which show that its HD console development which is the reason for this.

Why are the developers losing money on HD games but despite that focusing on HD consoles ? And they seem to be satisfied with the sales of the HD games. 3rd party games are peforming 2-3-5-10 times better on HD consoles but the 3rd party developers are domed anyway?

HD development is getting cheaper and cheaper. most of the costs are fix costs. Why do some people actually think they know better then the whole industry what is good for them and what not.

I wonder why the companys are so dumb that they cant see such obvious things, if someone in the internet with lesser informations can see, that they are wandering in to the abyss.


What exactly will happen with the 3rd party developers now are they going bankrupt ?

have they listed the reasons why they are in red ?

I would really be thankful if someone could list me how much the various games costed and which titels didnt break even on HD consoles ? Because I cant find the informations.

I made some reasearch to this theme because nobody questions that. Maybe I am wrong but If someone says I am wrong I want to know why.

Why costed crysis just 20 Million ? Wouldnt such a game break even with 750k-1000k sold ?


I list just a few high quality games

Uncharted 2-----20 Million
Kz2----------------25 Million

I actually read that Hd games cost between 20-30 Million Dollar and games like MW2 or Gt5 50-60 Million Dollar. GTA4 was 100 Million but I bet it could be made cheaper.

Wii games instead cost 5-10 million Dollar. Nintendo games definetly more. And dont forget synergic effects if you make multiplatform games I think porting a title is way cheaper.

I believe 3rd party developers just dont know how to make money with the wii. thats all. They tried it and they failed. Just look at the list which was posted earlier. A lot of 3rd party games do well on HD consoles good enough to justify the expense. And this expenses can be even lowered with Mulgtiplatform developing. A game would cost maybe 30-40 million for BOTH consoles. 15 Mln each. And a similar game on WII would have to be exclusive and be made from the scratch. You cant port a game from HD consoles to Wii because you have to change EVERYTHING textures engine Physics polygon models etc..

Thats why they develop for both consoles and exclusives are rare for a little more money they have two versions plus they have a bigger audience.



They are not able to make more money on the Wii its not the fault of Nintendo. They would definetly do something if they could they dont hate nintendo they make everything to earn money.

games for 50-60 Million Dollar are games which sell mostly 4-15 Million Units. Such games would quadruple wii costs. But they will definetly regain the money.



http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs

This link explains a lot make your own calculations.


Multiplatform development and the similaritys of both platforms is the reason why the developers are satsified with HD Software sales more so in the future.

I just want to add:

"It took $5 to $10 million to develop a PS2 game versus $800,000 to $1.7 million for the original PlayStation."

"Games for Xbox 360 and PS3 cost between USD 20 million and USD 30 million to make.[9]"




Every generation costs more money the jump in costs was higher between PS and PS2 then between PS2 and PS3.

The high costs have a nice sideeffect the developers just try to give their best to make an HD title.

If HD development would be really as bad as some people make it the developers would all turn to the wii or spend less money for the development. As you can they are not desperate. Is always that some of them have problems and maybe they all have red numbers because they had to spend money for new technologies and into the education of their employees.

Every sane person would stop making a game if he would knew that he will lose a lot of money. And especially if he experienced it all the time or atleast he would talk about it but nothing happens.

Ok another thing you're not getting is not all 1 billion is even making it back to Acitivision... much like that Avatar reference (which why you called it a game and not a movie I dunno cause the game didn't make 1 billion in revenue) but revenue generated is calculated by how much those tickets sell for and how many sell, who sells those tickets? Theaters.  They take their cut, the money finally makes it back to the people making the movie, which in terms of money a person makes since you need that I guess...

A person works for a business, he does jobs for a company, which makes said company money, say they work at Gamestop, and sells 100k worth of products for a part time job, but his cut is really about 5k for that year, even though he generated 100k dollars worth of sales and doing his job effectively so he generated 100k revenue but after the product cost, the business making its money, etc they give you a fraction of that, thats the actual income, which could yes be derived into how much you spend out in bills, games, food, etc.  and how much you have left over is your savings. 

Revenue is just the total money the game has created for all aspects, not all of that makes it back to activision which is then split up more for the money they had to spend.

In the end revenue is a good for everyone but doesn't always mean the company "made" anything, going back to Red Dead Redemtion, even if that game only sells a million copies, it will bring in enough revenue for retailers to make a good bundle, pay employees, etc.

You might not things in such complex ways but thats how it works.  That 1 billion revenue is going to not only Acitvision, but also Wal-Mart, Gamestop, Target, TV stations, game magazines, etc and all of their employees.

"Why some people always claim that HD Consoles generate the loss for 3rd party developers. Why are they focusing on the HD consoles if its such a bad buisness.

It seems like a myth not reality. has someone actually NUMBERS or anything else to support this claim ? Numbers which show that its HD console development which is the reason for this."

Developers are reporting losses. Those are their own numbers, not ours. Take Two is losing money. EA is losing money. Ubisoft has recently been reporting losses. Capcom and S_E haven't been loosing money, but have had reduced profits.

As for thinking people wouldn't stick with a bad business, you should study human nature.

No I want some reasons not just a foggy statement. Tell me why show me some examples and explain me why those games cant break even make an calculation this is just not an argument this is nothing. I am willing to believe you but you have to deliever something.

Perfect examples would be Factor 5 with Lair and Free Radical and Haze

Also I could look up EA explaining how Wii development on average is 1/4th that of HD budgets and that it takes around 1.1 million copies sold for the average HD game to break even, and EA has been posting losses the past couple of years.

The logic goes like this. I only made one game in 2009. I shit in a box and put a sticker on it that said Hardcore Space Nazi Zombie Bash Party. I sold zero copies. I made more money than Sony, EA, Take Two, and many others. Apparently my business is more sustainable, as I can shit in another box in 2010.

Metacritic doesn't make these guys money. They need to figure out what does.

"No I want some reasons not just a foggy statement."

Telling you that specific publishers are reporting losses is foggy?

That hardly proves HD investment is unprofitable though, does it? Even after profits made, companies are sinking money into lots of other things, paying execs 'above' the developers, spending on rnd on non-game related matters, market research, cancelled projects etc.

 The San Diego story that came out from Joystiq I think shows where alot of companies are sinking their moeny - mismanagement causes them to sinks a stupid amount of money into something and make it unprofitable. That's no the HD consoles fault, and it could happen on any games developement. It seems to happen less in the east, where I think the publishers have a better lid on their studios.

 It's foolish to assume going to the Wii will reap better profits for a company though, it depends entirely on circumstances. The western publishers are getting a pathetic amount out of the Wii userbase and it does need to step up, but at the same time non of them can afford to take risks in trying to sell on a market few have had success on. When I put myself in these companies shoes I think alot of them are in a really tight spot at the moment, and after most of them made their name in the Ps1 and Ps2 days they're not used to have two completely split markets.

 Also on the MW2 note, it has sold $1 billion at retail. As far as Activision are concerned, they make ~$30 per copy sold, so they're sitting at something like $600 million of that revenue once you factor in the extra money made from prestige editions etc. Mw2 will sell all year though, and the DLC will probably generate them an extra $100 million, plus whatever Microsoft paid for exclusivity...

If developers want an exclusive wii game to sell well why don't they; use most of the budget advertising the game, use appropriate and unique motion controls, instead of waggle, have good art direction and not use rail controls or target the weight-loss crowd.

i dont get this feeling of a 'shift' to HD. theve ALWAYS been HD. even when they say they are going for wii.

remember last year. EA said they were gunna put out their new core frnachises on wii.

we got a dead space rail shooter and (arguably) a spore spin off.


that was it, that was EA's shift in core support. third parties have always supported HD and not wii. That said, 2010 is looking like the best year for wii third party so im gunna enoy it while it lasts