1. There are still games that are made in people's free time though it is a very small amount of games

2. Audiosurf uses very simple graphics and that sold brilliantly, there's very little art work that's actually drawn in it

2.1 Audiossurf was tested with anyone, the price was quite low as the developer got his wife and family to play it then payed random people $20 to play it for an hour

3. STEAM will hold it on thier servers for you and there's no need for disks as it's all online and marketing as all users are notified of the product immediately and as long as there's a demo then someone will buy it

markop2003

First, you need money to buy office space (unless you're all going to work from home), equipment (computers and EXPENSIVE sdks), etc. You can get this by approaching a publisher (if you're lucky) or a venture capital firm (more likely) with a decent prototype, probably with fleshed out graphics. If you can't get the moneyholders interested, forget about it.

Second, you need more money to pay for salaries and use of the office space and unforeseen obstacles. If you're going to license an engine, add at least 500,000 to that total.

Third, you may even have to outsource art or QA testing to other companies, that's more fees.

Fourth, when the game is done, if you can't secure a publisher, you have to pay for the disc manufacturing and packaging, plus certification and licensing fees for whatever console you're making it for (unless this is a PC title). If you're only selling digital copies, you still have to put up money for server hosting and bandwidth.


In other words, starting a company of more than 20 people is going to cost at least 2 million, if you're really careful with your money.

Check out gamasutra.com and gamesindustry.biz if you want to find out more.

it depends what you're after.

Dawn of the Dead is by far the better ZOMBIE flick. It has shotguns, it has Ving Rhames, it has zombie babies, it has tons of brutal kills and ridiculous vehicles....it's a superb zombie flick that truly serves the zombie fan's appetites.

on the other hand, 28 Days Later is the better film, qualitatively. It's a zombie movie for film critics, or people who are not zombie fans. In fact, it's often not even a zombie flick. Outside of some defenses at the military outpost, this isn't the slayathon zombie fans expect. I mean, i think the main character kills one zombie the entire film and never fires a gun.

In other words, 28 days Later is better as a real, quality film. Dawn of the Dead 04 is much better at being zombie fan service. i love both movies, but they truly are very different.

Paladin_King