I don't think Red Steel cost $10 million to make, more like $10.
I don't think Red Steel cost $10 million to make, more like $10.
It cost 12-13 million dollars.
What a waste of $$.
Just setting you guys straight on this "next-gen" BS and why people aren't bringing the "quality games" to the Wii. I bet RE4's costs were insanely high. Why would someone spend all that extra $$ to make a Wii game look OK when you can make a 360 game look ridiculous for almost the same money or simply "much better than Wii" for less?
Do people that read this thread think Pachter is talking to gamers? This whole thing is out of context.
He isn't saying "You should be so lucky. It is a steal you ungrateful son of a..."
He is talking to investors and non-gamers that may not understand the impact that higher pricing will have on the industry. He is saying "the higher prices may be justified as games are getting better. The industry may be able to sustain this model, so don't expect a crash. Not a crash due to pricing, anyway."
In this respect, I agree with him. Though, nobody likes to hear "you should be grateful" or "it is a bargain, if you think about it". Though, as I said, I think we are all reading a little to much into it.
For me, it is whether a game is worth my time rather than my money (as has been mentioned before).
Because they want to sell games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
"However, as Rein clarified, Epic has not had to budget for the cost of a game engine - since GOW runs on the proprietary Unreal Engine 3."Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Maybe you should pick a more intellectually honest comparison (or include the cost of developing the Unreal Engine 3).
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-ArticlePage1
"THQ Inc. (THQI.O: Quote, Profile , Research) Chief Executive Brian Farrell said that investment in a next-generation video game can run roughly $12 million to $20 million, while a title for the Wii could be in the $5 million to $8 million range. "It's that order of magnitude lower," said Farrell."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been thinking about ports on the Wii. Right now they look like an easy way for companies to sell more copies of their games in order to make a profit. As time goes on, and the graphical differences between the Wii and the other two consoles becomes greater, will this still be the case? Are companies going to be willing to not only have to implement an entirely new control scheme, but to also downgrade their games graphically to be on the Wii?
I'd assume that most would, if the money's there, but I'm also thinking that they'd probably refrain from doing this with their biggest titles. Something tells me we won't see Rainbow 6: Vegas (which is coming to PS3 later this year) on the Wii, and I'm afraid this might become a trend.
Eh, I'm just thinking out loud. Not a knock on the Wii, mind you, just a concern.
I don't think the graphical difference between Wii and 360/PS3 will ever be greater than it is right now (Gears compared to a bunch of GameCube ports). I don't think games like Rainbow Six Vegas will ever hit Wii, but developers will make other games for Wii instead. That's got it's own pros and cons.
Because the average consumer is getting an HDTV when they buy their next television, and they don't want artifact-laden standard def content on it since that defeats the entire purpose of buying it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy