Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES
Not sure what this cost comparison is suppose to prove? All I know is this data can be 'looked at' in different ways to prove different things..
As it is, this data can be very misleading..
For example, a bigger software team can do more in less amount of time. So for this data to really be useful you would have to take into account how many worked on it and how long it took to develop those 'games' you listed. Ill bet that none of them took 6 years like CoD has.
Also note that and a lot of those games are spending a lot of money 'creating' worlds that don't exist, the neat thing about WWII flight sims is they only have to worry about 'copying' a world that already exists.  |
Well, BF III only been at it for 5 years (and counting).
As for "creating a world that already exists", as far as i know creating for ex a desert with a painted, static background couldn't be that much of a chore for a massive staff with a budget in the hundreds of millions.
My point? Maby people should think just for a sec what's being created with a budget that wouldn`t even unlock the office door to the bigger development teams. Its true they sell a lot more copies, but in the end they develop a game to, in equal time but with a much bigger budget. Does it mean it looks a hundred million times better? No it doesnt. Does it mean the CoD team is taking way to much time getting the game finished, with a shoe string budget? No it doesnt. I would go as far as saying u would be hard pressed to find a genre (flight sim) thats more complicated in terms of physics, DM etc etc. Looking at it that way id say its pretty amazing what they can achieve for a "meesly" 8 million. (if that is in fact the true budget). Something tells me RoF is/was in a simillar situation so im not just talking about CoD here.