People claim they spent 60 million making killzone 2 but I see no proof?

Killzone 2 is a great game but fanboys have been claiming they spent 60 million making the game and will never see a return, So where is the link of proof that they actually spent 60 million making the game that 360 only owners? claim to be true and bring up every second.

I am still waiting for proof on the 60 million number, considering all the fanboys here who would be DYING to get a crack at this game you would imagine it would be thrown all around the place.

Funny thing is... it's not.

What does that tell you? ;)

People can claim anything cant they? KZ2 looks awesome but its not 60mil awesome. I honestly feel developers lie about time and money these days to try and justify the price on games...

Killzone 2 is a great game but fanboys have been claiming they spent 60 million making the game and will never see a return, So where is the link of proof that they actually spent 60 million making the game that 360 only owners? claim to be true and bring up every second.

gerard-williams

Killzone 2 cost 61 Million to make, and it too 5-6 years for Guerrilla and Sony to develop. EndThread.

Every time an anti KZ2/Sony posters speaks of KZ2, they add a year of Development, it's fun! At some point in time, KZ2 will have been underway before KZ1 was! Eventually, overtime, KZ2 was an idea that Sony stole from Nintendo's SNES Engineers. SW is great!

This thread's been KILLZOWNED!!!

---------------------------------------------

People that generally go against rumor are mostly due to their ignorance...and SONY has payed a buttload on marketing.

Blue-Sky

I read that Sony actually paid 4.25 Buttloads...but it was just a rumor. Don't go against it.

I myself don't measure by the Buttloads, everything is measured in MetricRabbits.

Sony probably did pay 2,754,321 in MetricRabbits for KZ2....AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT!

Its a rumor

You will hardly ever see definite sources for these type of things. A publisher doesn't typically disclose that type of information. They've been several industry insiders, analyst and blogs pointing to a Guerilla games blunder of some sort that lead to them doubling their initial budget of $30 Million.

I heard its due to poor management of resources.

You can find some here and here

People can claim anything cant they? KZ2 looks awesome but its not 60mil awesome. I honestly feel developers lie about time and money these days to try and justify the price on games...

FunkyHeadHunter

srsly, tho...IMO, the game started dev around early 06 K2 was basically non existant in 05...and half the time the engine was being built.

Killzone 2 costing over $60 million is very plausible. People that generally go against this rumor are mostly due to their ignorance on how much blockbuster games actually cost. Heck GTA4 was almost $100 million when you factored years of development, marketing and royalties. Halo 3 isn't far behind KZ2 on marketing alone.

The Fact is Killzone 2 took over 3 years to make. Guerilla Games increased their staff (more salaries to pay) and SONY has payed a buttload on marketing.

The Fact is Killzone 2 took over 3 years to make. Guerilla Games increased their staff (more salaries to pay) and SONY has payed a buttload on marketing.

Blue-Sky

The Fact is that despite all the arm flailing and damage control done by fanboys, not a SINGLE one has EVER been able to produce any evidence what so ever that it cost upwards of 60 million to make.

It is completely speculation, that is fact.

It is (All) speculation.

GrumpyWalrus

Why so Grumpy, Mr. Walrus?:P You are correct, it's all just a fun guessing game. It's all possible, but it's all a bunch of guesswork. Trudat.

People that generally go against rumor are mostly due to their ignorance...and SONY has payed a buttload on marketing.

Blue-Sky

I read that Sony actually paid 4.25 Buttloads...but it was just a rumor. Don't go against it.

I myself don't measure by the Buttloads, everything is measured in MetricRabbits.

Sony probably did pay 2,754,321 in MetricRabbits for KZ2....AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT! :shock:

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The Fact is that despite all the arm flailing and damage control done by fanboys, not a SINGLE one has EVER been able to produce any evidence what so ever that it cost upwards of 60 million to make.

It is completely speculation, that is fact.

GrumpyWalrus

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

People that generally go against rumor are mostly due to their ignorance...and SONY has payed a buttload on marketing.

SolidTy

I read that Sony actually paid 4.25 Buttloads...but it was just a rumor. Don't go against it.

I myself don't measure by the Buttloads, everything is measured in MetricRabbits.

Sony probably did pay 2,754,321 in MetricRabbits for KZ2....AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT!

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The Fact is Killzone 2 took over 3 years to make. Guerilla Games increased their staff (more salaries to pay) and SONY has payed a buttload on marketing.

GrumpyWalrus

The Fact is that despite all the arm flailing and damage control done by fanboys, not a SINGLE one has EVER been able to produce any evidence what so ever that it cost upwards of 60 million to make.

It is completely speculation, that is fact.

I said it was a rumor. Why would there be proof? There is no proof, if this is what the thread is about, then we should wrap things up, problem solved.

I thought I could liven up the rest of the thread by presenting my conclusion that they did spend $60 million based on the surrounding circumstances. I want to have a discussion on what you personaly think. Do you think KZ2 costs $60 million like its other blockbuster brothers? (halo, GTA4,)

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

I read that Sony actually paid 4.25 Buttloads...but it was just a rumor. Don't go against it.

I myself don't measure by the Buttloads, everything is measured in MetricRabbits.

Sony probably did pay 2,754,321 in MetricRabbits for KZ2....AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT!

Slambo86

That's why I sent a Letter to the President of Sony America, President of Sony Europe, President of Sony Japan, and a Letter to President Obama stating that Sony should have chipped in more MetricRabbits, but I don't think they got the letters yet. I just sent them out yesterday. I'll keep you posted.

If the marketing campaign for KZ2 is considered weak or poor, I suppose Sony didn't actually pay the full 4.25 BUTTLOADS then, so these rumors may not be very accurate! ;)

It is completely speculation, that is fact.

[QUOTE="Slambo86"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

I read that Sony actually paid 4.25 Buttloads...but it was just a rumor. Don't go against it.

I myself don't measure by the Buttloads, everything is measured in MetricRabbits.

Sony probably did pay 2,754,321 in MetricRabbits for KZ2....AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT!

SolidTy

That's why I sent a Letter to the President of Sony America, President of Sony Europe, President of Sony Japan, and a Letter to President Obama stating that Sony should have chipped in more MetricRabbits, but I don't think they got the letters yet. I just sent them out yesterday. I'll keep you posted.

If the marketing is considered week, I suppose Sony didn't actually pay the full 4.25 BUTTLOADS then, so these rumors may not be very accurate! ;)

Funny guy, you. Sony should have done more and done it EARLIER. Sometimes i think there strategy is to let the games do the talking and not overhype them like MS does. (halo,gears) Problem with that, No many people will have heard of it or get interested, unless you're a hardcore gamer. etc. Slambo86

Maybe Sony's Marketing has stayed the same or slightly increased, but since we gamers seen so much hardcore marketing from M$, that we assume Sony should up the ante?

It's possible Sony does need to, I don't know, I do know that Word of mouth can work, LBP, De Blob, GTA 3, orginal Halo, and more did really well that way. Marketing can obviously increase that though, sure.

Also, in the PSN store, there is a really cool Interactive Matrix Like Bullet Time KZ2 Real Time Demo to check out, it's free. I think people see it and think, "I already own this game, I don't want the Demo"...but it's not the Demo, it's got Commentary from the designers, and the ability to move the camera in real time, pretty slick...if you are a KZ2 dude.

I don't doubt it. That's why developers favor the 360. The development tools are much better, which means MUCH lower production costs...-GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]I don't doubt it. That's why developers favor the 360. The development tools are much better, which means MUCH lower production costs...Slambo86

[QUOTE="Slambo86"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]I don't doubt it. That's why developers favor the 360. The development tools are much better, which means MUCH lower production costs...-GeordiLaForge-

well still no link with this solid proof of 60 million that people are throwing around, it basically needs proof or stop throwing numbers around when people have no clue. and gears looks better than killzone 2?? hahaahaha!!!! gerard-williams

how about this?

excerpt from the page:

About Killzone 2

Killzone 2 is Guerrilla Games' next gen sequel to Killzone. This is one of the biggest PlayStation 3 developments with a budget of approximately $60 million to make. Many gamers see this as the Halo killer title.

[QUOTE="Slambo86"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]I don't doubt it. That's why developers favor the 360. The development tools are much better, which means MUCH lower production costs...-GeordiLaForge-

WTF is with this gears 2 looking omfgwtfbbq amazing. Gears 2 wasn't even nominated for best graphics on GS. MGS4 won that. Gears 2 lost to MGS4 in best graphics on the VGA as well.

[QUOTE="gerard-williams"]well still no link with this solid proof of 60 million that people are throwing around, it basically needs proof or stop throwing numbers around when people have no clue. and gears looks better than killzone 2?? hahaahaha!!!! cowgriller

how about this?

excerpt from the page:

About Killzone 2

Killzone 2 is Guerrilla Games' next gen sequel to Killzone. This is one of the biggest PlayStation 3 developments with a budget of approximately $60 million to make. Many gamers see this as the Halo killer title.

that's not proof in any way whatsoever.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="gerard-williams"]well still no link with this solid proof of 60 million that people are throwing around, it basically needs proof or stop throwing numbers around when people have no clue. and gears looks better than killzone 2?? hahaahaha!!!! Trinners

how about this?

excerpt from the page:

About Killzone 2

Killzone 2 is Guerrilla Games' next gen sequel to Killzone. This is one of the biggest PlayStation 3 developments with a budget of approximately $60 million to make. Many gamers see this as the Halo killer title.

that's not proof in any way whatsoever.

really? it's from playstation universe.it says the game had a $60 million dev budget, yet to you somehow it isn't proof? odd, because it is proof. until GG or sony comes out saying that they spent $60 million making the game, this is the closest to definitive proof.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Slambo86"] K2 visually > every 360 game. MGS4's score > Every 360 game. :)Trinners

WTF is with this gears 2 looking omfgwtfbbq amazing. Gears 2 wasn't even nominated for best graphics on GS. MGS4 won that. Gears 2 lost to MGS4 in best graphics on the VGA as well.

GS graphics awards are reader based meaning that the readers voted for that game to win. this is pure BS because somehow burnout paradise made it on the list. it's even more BS that mgs4 beat crysis warhead.

as a matter of fact, here's the link that even says "READERS' CHOICE".

gamespot best of '08

GS graphics awards are reader based meaning that the readers voted for that game to win. this is pure BS because somehow burnout paradise made it on the list. it's even more BS that mgs4 beat crysis warhead.

as a matter of fact, here's the link that even says "READERS' CHOICE".

gamespot best of '08

cowgriller

[QUOTE="Slambo86"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]I don't doubt it. That's why developers favor the 360. The development tools are much better, which means MUCH lower production costs...-GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

GS graphics awards are reader based meaning that the readers voted for that game to win. this is pure BS because somehow burnout paradise made it on the list. it's even more BS that mgs4 beat crysis warhead.

as a matter of fact, here's the link that even says "READERS' CHOICE".

gamespot best of '08

Teufelhuhn

That's true but the fact Crysis lost says about all that needs to be said on there awards. You'd need to be blind, deaf and dumb to think it wasn't the best looking game about, still not sure how it lost.

Anywho on with the topic;

You didn't think they developed the game from water did you TC? Payed the staff with Oxygen? Wrote out IOU's to tv channels and everywhere else they happened to advertise?

It's safe to assume the game cost a lot to make, did it cost 60? Who knows, might of cost more. One thing is for sure though; It needs to sell more than it has to break even, no matter how much it cost. ;]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

GS graphics awards are reader based meaning that the readers voted for that game to win. this is pure BS because somehow burnout paradise made it on the list. it's even more BS that mgs4 beat crysis warhead.

as a matter of fact, here's the link that even says "READERS' CHOICE".

gamespot best of '08

Teufelhuhn

no i can see both but the fact remains that the reader and the editors blindly and overwhelmingly chose mgs4 because it was the flavor of the month. what i still don't understand is how burnout paradise is there when it wasn't exactly the best looking racing game. if they did it based on the review score, then way is far cry 2 there when it got an 8.5 but gears 2 isn't when it got a 9.0. the biggest gripe of all is what went through the minds of the editors when they said mgs4 is graphically superior to crysis warhead? i could understand the readers' choice, as that voted on by the fanboys with multiple accounts, but the editors? maybe they voted the on the game based on the cutscenes rather than the game itself.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="gerard-williams"]well still no link with this solid proof of 60 million that people are throwing around, it basically needs proof or stop throwing numbers around when people have no clue. and gears looks better than killzone 2?? hahaahaha!!!! Trinners

how about this?

excerpt from the page:

About Killzone 2

Killzone 2 is Guerrilla Games' next gen sequel to Killzone. This is one of the biggest PlayStation 3 developments with a budget of approximately $60 million to make. Many gamers see this as the Halo killer title.

that's not proof in any way whatsoever.

That's true but the fact Crysis lost says about all that needs to be said on there awards. You'd need to be blind, deaf and dumb to think it wasn't the best looking game about, still not sure how it lost.

CreepyBacon

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

GS graphics awards are reader based meaning that the readers voted for that game to win. this is pure BS because somehow burnout paradise made it on the list. it's even more BS that mgs4 beat crysis warhead.

as a matter of fact, here's the link that even says "READERS' CHOICE".

gamespot best of '08

yowhoayoyo

fail. that crysis pic is on medium settings and that mgs4 pic is from a cutscene.

this is a crysis pic

and this is a gameplay pic of mgs4

here's a couple more of both

how did mgs 4 win again?

Crysis Warhead is essentially Crysis+, we already knew how amazing Crysis looked a year before so what's the point of giving the award to the same game again? MGS4 won, because at the time it was the best looking game on the PS3 by a pretty wide margin. It set the standard for the platform. That's how I see it. inertk

at the time, it may have been the best looking game for the PS3, but not overall. gears 2 and crysis look better but somehow gears 2 wasn't nominated and crysis was screwed.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

how about this?

excerpt from the page:

About Killzone 2

Killzone 2 is Guerrilla Games' next gen sequel to Killzone. This is one of the biggest PlayStation 3 developments with a budget of approximately $60 million to make. Many gamers see this as the Halo killer title.

navyguy21

that's not proof in any way whatsoever.

did he just trick me with sarcasm?

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

how about this?

excerpt from the page:

About Killzone 2

Killzone 2 is Guerrilla Games' next gen sequel to Killzone. This is one of the biggest PlayStation 3 developments with a budget of approximately $60 million to make. Many gamers see this as the Halo killer title.

cowgriller

that's not proof in any way whatsoever.

really? it's from playstation universe.it says the game had a $60 million dev budget, yet to you somehow it isn't proof? odd, because it is proof. until GG or sony comes out saying that they spent $60 million making the game, this is the closest to definitive proof.

Are you serious with that post? There is no source on that statement. Where is the link to the official statement or document? None. Therefore it's not proof.

[QUOTE="inertk"]Crysis Warhead is essentially Crysis+, we already knew how amazing Crysis looked a year before so what's the point of giving the award to the same game again? MGS4 won, because at the time it was the best looking game on the PS3 by a pretty wide margin. It set the standard for the platform. That's how I see it. cowgriller

at the time, it may have been the best looking game for the PS3, but not overall. gears 2 and crysis look better but somehow gears 2 wasn't nominated and crysis was screwed.

Edit: Isn't PSU the site that reports on vaporware games like Wardevil?

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

that's not proof in any way whatsoever.

Trinners

really? it's from playstation universe.it says the game had a $60 million dev budget, yet to you somehow it isn't proof? odd, because it is proof. until GG or sony comes out saying that they spent $60 million making the game, this is the closest to definitive proof.

Are you serious with that post? There is no source on that statement. Where is the link to the official statement or document? None. Therefore it's not proof.

once again, until sony or GG comes out saying they spent $60 million developing killzone 2, this is the closest we have to an actual figure? do you have any proof of the contrary?

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

really? it's from playstation universe.it says the game had a $60 million dev budget, yet to you somehow it isn't proof? odd, because it is proof. until GG or sony comes out saying that they spent $60 million making the game, this is the closest to definitive proof.

cowgriller

Are you serious with that post? There is no source on that statement. Where is the link to the official statement or document? None. Therefore it's not proof.

once again, until sony or GG comes out saying they spent $60 million developing killzone 2, this is the closest we have to an actual figure? do you have any proof of the contrary?

that's like saying god exists because there is no evidence to disprove him. Burden of proof rests on the people making the claims.

If it took between 3.5-4yrs to make it probably cost between $30-$40 million to make. Especially if there were about 200 people working on the game.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="inertk"]Crysis Warhead is essentially Crysis+, we already knew how amazing Crysis looked a year before so what's the point of giving the award to the same game again? MGS4 won, because at the time it was the best looking game on the PS3 by a pretty wide margin. It set the standard for the platform. That's how I see it. inertk

at the time, it may have been the best looking game for the PS3, but not overall. gears 2 and crysis look better but somehow gears 2 wasn't nominated and crysis was screwed.

Edit: Isn't PSU the site that reports on vaporware games like Wardevil?

still, that's not a good reason to discount crysis warhead. the games should only be judged on the game itself, not by its predecessor. gears 2 is more than based on subjectivity. the lighting and texture work in gears 2 is hands down better than mgs 4. as for wardevil being vaporware, it this point i wouldn't be surprised if it got cancelled.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

Are you serious with that post? There is no source on that statement. Where is the link to the official statement or document? None. Therefore it's not proof.

Trinners

once again, until sony or GG comes out saying they spent $60 million developing killzone 2, this is the closest we have to an actual figure? do you have any proof of the contrary?

that's like saying god exists because there is no evidence to disprove him. Burden of proof rests on the people making the claims.

lack of proof is not proof for lack of existence. unless you have proof that the budget was less than $60 million, then the link i provided is the best possible evidence of a budget figure.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

once again, until sony or GG comes out saying they spent $60 million developing killzone 2, this is the closest we have to an actual figure? do you have any proof of the contrary?

cowgriller

that's like saying god exists because there is no evidence to disprove him. Burden of proof rests on the people making the claims.

lack of proof is not proof for lack of existence. unless you have proof that the budget was less than $60 million, then the link i provided is the best possible evidence of a budget figure.

my goodness, the point is that since there isn o proof at all on either side the only possible conclusion is: I don't know or false. Why do you think in court the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and not on the defendant.

If you don't provide indismisasble evidence to support your claim then it is considered false.

If it took between 3.5-4yrs to make it probably cost between $30-$40 million to make. Especially if there were about 200 people working on the game.

XanderZane

it took 4 years, $60 million with development team of 120 people and some of the work was done by another studio because GG was overwhelmed with the workload.

the game may have been in development longer because it was previewed at e3 2005, meaning that work had already begun before that trailer was made.