Talk:List of most expensive video games to develop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marketing vs Development

I don't think "anyone" cares about the marketing cost.. why is it still included in this page. This page is most expensive video games to develop.. not most expensive games to market. IMO the people visiting this page don't care about how much money a game producer spends on posters and tv advertisements.

Can we get some consensus on this?

My previous comment: The biggest issue I see with this article is that it mixes marketing and development cost when Wikipedia readers are most likely to be interested in "just" development cost. A game with an enormous marketing budget is not the primary interest of anyone reading this page (imo). I suggest we work towards re-ordering the list (excluding marketing budget).

(Just a new reader saying the same, marketing is hot air and doesn't shape the game itself in any form. When the market costs outweigh the actual game development costs then you know the game is overhyped and style over substance at best anyway.)

I disagree. Some numbers are deceiving and are the sum of both while single values without marketing costs aren't available. For example Pokemon red/blue supposedly cost 50 mio to make which sounds ridiculous for a gameboy game, but then you can see from the table that this is actually the entire marketing budget and that actually makes sense. Besides, it's interesting to see the marketing/development ratio. How you can so far as to generalize every potential visitor of this site of not being interested in the marketing numbers is beyond me. In the end, your argument also makes little sense as the cost for producing any product - game or otherwise - is tightly knit with marketing, so those costs of course belong here. Btw, great job not signing your post. Who knows how old this already is... 217.190.156.153 (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with leaving the marketing costs, but I think the default sort and/or ranking should emphasize the development costs. Smurdah (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Destiny the game not actually five-hundred million dollars to develop

According to this article, Bungie did not actually spend half a billion dollars on developing or advertising Destiny. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/destiny-budget-nowhere-near-500-million-bungie-says/1100-6420802/ A website devoted to video games is a lot more credible than two websites with video games on the side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.247.53 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is true, why is it still in the article? Get rid of it. 63.108.129.19 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign in. The one and only. 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devann (talk • contribs)

Someone keeps changing it back, even though it is factually wrong. You don't include the full cost of the franchise in the latest installment of an Assassin's Creed game. Destiny did not cost 500 million, stop changing it back. It is wrong, the game cost 140 million (and that probably even includes marketing costs on top of that which we have not sourced). Unless you have sources that differ from the ones that we have, it should not be changed back!

Further: Unless there is a Destiny 2 and Destiny 3, the 500 million have not even been used for the brand "Destiny", as such alone they should not get counted fully (btw, this also has implications that the full 500 should not be used to calculate "costs with inflation"!). 91.136.153.107 (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editor who keeps putting Destiny back at #1: About the contract and the "140 million": I did read the contract and the "140 million" is the number where the developer as to face contractual punishments. So while Destiny might have cost 140 million (including!) marketing it is unlikely it cost much more, and possible it cost even less. The "500 million" number is refuted by the sources. Do not change back that Destiny cost 500 million! It is wrong and outright refuted by the sources in this page and NOT supported by the contract! 91.136.153.107 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Every time you move this, you don't change the numbers. You're just changing the sort order, but the table is sorted on the final column (total adjusted for inflation), not the development cost. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If that WRONG number for the single game is the problem, that can get fixed. In fact, I think I had it fixed and someone edited that back as well. The constract clearly states (I read it all) that the named value of up to 140 million dollars is for the development AND the marketing for the first Destiny-Game.

Destiny should not listed as having cost 500 million. It's 500 million for an entire new franchise constisting of several full titles. We're not calculating the cost of the entire GTA (or whatever) franchise and should not do this for destiny as well. Big numbers might be impressive but here they are plain wrong. Link by Bungie: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/07/01/bungie-says-destiny-cost-nowhere-near-500-million-decade-long-story-planned/

A lot of the money is also to create backend infrastructure for further titles: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-investing-500-million-for-bungie-s-destiny/1100-6419444/ 2003:4C:EB17:C691:A98C:D9AD:F81B:3825 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(Thanks for clarifying I never believed in that value at all) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.14.138 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed PROD.

I have removed the PROD because, contrary to the PROD statement that "There are no sources cited at all for this, and it does not look like there ever will be," a few sources do exist:

• Ashcraft, Brian (February 25, 2010). "Report: The Ten Most Expensive Video Game Budgets Apparently Are..." Kotaku. Retrieved 2013-04-20.
• Gaskill, Jake (February 25, 2010). "Top 10 Highest (Estimated) Game Budgets Of All Time". G4. Retrieved 2013-04-20.
• Horvath, Stu (March 8, 2010). "Most expensive video games: Were they worth the money?". Daily News. Retrieved 2013-04-20.

As for the other concerns in the PROD, the lack of contextual information is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem, as the article can be expanded to include this. I agree that notability (WP:GNG) is still a concern, particularly as the three sources I cited seem to be based on the Digital Battle blog. That would be acceptable if multiple WP:RS media outlets all feature significant coverage on a story that originated from a blog post, but in this case, I'm uncertain as to how reliable these sources are (e.g. WP:VG/RS only deems Kotaku posts written after 2010 to be reliable, but doesn't give any specific guidance for posts written in 2010 itself). Regardless, there's just enough hint of potential notability that I don't feel that this concern is sufficient to justify a PROD deletion. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Column for revenue

It would be nice to also list how much money these games made. 75.30.88.94 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Star Citizen - Funds raised v. dev costs

Presently the Star Citizen listing at 78mil is correct for showing the amount of money raised for development of the game, but isn't representative of actual funds spent on development costs. Some of this may at this point be considered revenue for the studio. 178.18.17.118 (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

They have pledged that "all" of the raised money prior to release will be going directly into the game, so these can be considered development costs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.134.176 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

i would argue that a good portion of money is being funneled into event planning and staging globally, and making videos such as around the verse and 10 for the "whatever" (which i would class as advertising), this money is obviously not going directly to game development in anyway, so the statement that "all" raised money is going directly to game development is obviously false. so of the $80 and change million raised so far we have no actual idea of how much has been sunk into game development, all we do know is its "less than $80 Million [$80 million minus event fees minus travel for the employees minus the cost producing weekly videos]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.200.254.142 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to mention their subscriptions which are exclusively funding their video content and magazine, and that their events each have admission fees which are supposed to cover the costs. Supposedly this should keep the amount raised through pledges exclusive for their operating expenses. However I don't know if these earnings are actually excluded from the total amount displayed on the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.95.91.101 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

SC devs have stated that all pledged funds goes straight to the development of the game. Unless you've got a inside source that says otherwise, this topic is irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)

This statement is irrelevant. All pledge money might go into the development of the game but this list is for the cost on release. A game like World of Warcraft that has been going on for 11 years would reach into the half billion range otherwise. SC had a very successful crowdfunding campaign, we would have to assume that SC is currently burning all their raised money. It might or might not be the case, but I don't think people come to Wikipedia to read about other people assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.66.139 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Already replied below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Source/math is wrong?

The source listed for MW2 is: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96227-How-Much-Did-Modern-Warfare-2-Cost-to-Make

That website lists a LA times article as its source for the dollar values: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18

The LA times article says: "Call of Duty cost $40 million to $50 million to produce, people close to the project said, about as much as a mid-size film. Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million,"

This seems to imply that the total cost of the game was $200 million total, rather than 50+200 million that is referenced in the table. Every other article I looked at either did not provide a source, or referenced the same LA times article. Thoughts?

Minimum value of 50 Mio

I came here to see how development costs developed over the ages only to see that artificial 50 Mio USD minimum limit. I don't think it makes any sense, as it shuts off two decades of gaming. The name of the page is "list of most expensive video games to develop" not "list of games that cost at least 50 Mio USD to make". Games like Phantasmagoria which cost 6 Mio USD to make and was regarded as being the most expensive game of 1995 are left out of this list for no reason. 217.190.156.153 (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you made a valid point. Especially when there is a table that adjusts for inflation. I will look into this more. Agent of the nine (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of most expensive video games to develop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.incgamers.com/News/21928/cancelled-halo-mmo-details

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

About Star Citizen and the one who's removing it from the list

Someone (IP: 75.156.66.139) is continuously removing this game from the list of most expensive games to develop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop), based on these false arguments:

- Game is unfinished (Irrelevant fact to be removed from that list as the list itself doesn't have in mind the current status of a game, the game is currently work-in-progress, and there are also other unfinished/cancelled games on that list that he doesn't care about in the slightest, proof that he's only a SC hater).

- Numbers doesn't represent the amount destined to the development of the game (False: the SC devs have stated many times that the funds in the linked Stretch Goals page goes exclusively to the development of the game (1) (2). Other marketing and event stuff is handled by donations from subscribers (3) ).

(1) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals , quote: "As a crowd funded project, Star Citizen's scope is based directly on the support provided by our backers. Money pledged goes directly to the game's development."

(2) "10 for the Chairman, Episode 69" YouTube video , (minute 4:45), quote from SC's creator and chairman as of 9, Nov 2015: "We're not doing the typical commercials. We're taking all the money we've raised, and put it into the development of the game".

(3) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/subscriptions

Even knowing the truth, he keeps removing the game from that list. Thus I ask if that guy can be banned from editing this page any further. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)

If edit warring will continue, you can put request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sir Lothar (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do it if he edits it one more time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 11:24, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)

@KurtMaverick: Yep, he keeps on removing content. You can put request on WP:ANI. Sir Lothar (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Reporting right now. EDIT: Report done, but I don't know how to do/send an ANI notice to that guy...— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found a few independent sources for Star Citizen that talk about its budget: this article says that all the funding goes to its budget, and this article and this article summarize the latest events. Wired gives a $77M budget, and Rock Paper Shotgun gives a more-recent $90M budget. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

THE OTHER EDITOR >>> All pledge money might go into the development of the game but this list is for the cost on release. Otherwise a game like World of Warcraft that has been a WIP since 2001 would reach into the billion dollars range, and this list would start to make no sense. SC had a very successful crowdfunding campaign, we would have to assume that SC is currently burning all their raised money. It might or might not be the case, but I don't think people come to Wikipedia to read about other people assumptions, but to read about facts. I really hope SC will be on top of this chart very soon, but I think it's too soon until we get more insight of ... the actual cost of development. <<<— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.66.139 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Now you change subjects? OK, I'll rebate that one, too.

Star Citizen is a special case. While normal AAA games get their funds pool from whatever publisher or investor inmediately, Star Citizen is being continuously funded by the community. That's why it's development cost is constantly being updated (every million reached).

Besides, you WoW example is just absurd, because we're talking about the money destined to develop the game, and not the money that the game has earned since it was completed. Those are two very different things.

About your "assumptions", you can say exactly the same about any other AAA game on the list. Why can't I just "assume" then that every reported development cost from any other game is false, and that they've burned it instead of investing it on developing the game? "Destiny" would be an excellent example of that. Besides, so far there has been absolutely no proof that the funds are being used for anything else than for the game itself. Wheter they're being used more or less effectively is a matter of speculation and subjectivism, and again the same can be said for any other game currently being developed/already completed.

In short: less cynic assumptions and more proof. I already posted mine. And I think it's reasonable to believe the developers of the game itself over a random internet guy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 December 2015‎ (UTC)

THE OTHER EDITOR >>> Burn rate = negative cash flow, not setting cash on fire, you can burn your cash in the development of a game ... I'm not talking about money wow as earned i'm talking about development cost. it would reach well into the billion figure for wow. Destiny cost probably doubled since launch date, and so as most multiplayer game. Case in point, if an asteroid hit SC office tomorrow and the game was cancelled, not only the status would change to "cancelled" but the cost would drop from the total money raised to probably the 0-30 million figure (what they have burned so far). Even if this event is really unlikely, you are predicting the future, and I hope wikipedia does not allow this kind of inaccuracy.

Adding some kind of annotation saying that this is an estimate based on the total money raised would be fine for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.66.139 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see why that "burn rate" of yours can't be applied to any other game development...if that concept exists at all, that's it. And I definitely cannot see why spending money on the game's development doesn't count as spending money on the game's development. Apparently (and pretty amazingly, in terms of making sense), you seem to think they aren't the same. I'm also amazed by your knowledge of both CiG accountability, and general AAA game companies' one. Are you keeping an eye on every cent that CiG is spending, by the way? I'd love to know about it as well.

I also take the opportunity to repeat that money gained by a finished game is NOT the same that money raised to actually DEVELOP that game, thus I won't comment on the "billions" absurdity any longer. If your point isn't that one, then I don't understand by far why you assume WoW's DEVELOPING funds could be that high (DEVELOPING understood as of funds assigned and used towards the development of the final FIRST version of the game, and thus once the game is finished, then dev. cost doesn't increases any further than that).

If an asteroid hits CiG's office tomorrow, I'll be more than happy to remove the game from the list myself. Until that happens, they're on good business. And you're highly misinterpreting what the SC counter accounts for: It accounts for all the money pledged so far towards the development of the game, NOT the money they've got currently on the bank, because OF COURSE it isn't, as they're constantly using it for actually, you know, DOING the game. The fact that you seemed to think otherwise just amazes me. It seems that you think they've spent those last 3 years idle without doing anything, and just watching the pledge counter go up, or what?

Also, I'd like to remark again how "interested" you are in SC, seemingly due to it's incomplete status, and how you blatantly ignore the couple of cancelled games that appear on the list ("Halo MMO" and "This is Vegas").

Anyway, seeing how partial you are, and not knowing neither what this page is about, and what the SC Pledge counter amount represents, then you're the least qualified to be editing this page. And so the admins decided accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ (UTC)

THE OTHER EDITOR >>>

Let's forget about the "burn rare", apparently you get really confused with basic economics terms. I ABSOLUTLY do not mix up cost vs gain, repeating that wont make it true. World of warcraft as being develop for the last 14 years (6 expansions so far) and had an upkeep cost of about $50 millions a year in 2008.

You said it yourself, the cost should not increase after the first version is released (we agree on that). With that in mind there is NO source (please find one!) telling us what SC will have spend (or think will spend) BEFORE releasing the first version. I'm sure that they are willing to spend 100% but they might be only able to spend 25% of the raised money before the first release, we don't know! Unless you can see the future, or know how much they are currently spending, saying that the total funding is going to be the cost on release is just pure speculation.

Don't get mad, I just care about wikipedia having honest informations. I hope SC will crush this list and end up being numero uno :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.66.139 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2015‎

Both of you need to sign your posts to avoid confusion. Do this with four tildes ~. Please also avoid changing or refactoring the comments of each other. -- ferret (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point I just hope you're kidding. You're comparing WoW and it's expansions with a game that hasn't even finished it's base yet, and a game which we don't have any idea how it's expansion system will be? And I guess you know how much an expansion costs to develop, right? Because I bet you think it costs what a full game costs, despite an expansion having already the base engine and setting to work upon, and thus only the content is needed to be added. But of course you had to think that an expansion costs the same as a full game, and thus adding that absurd cost of "billions".

Plus, the "upkeep" cost (servers, maintenance, addons, etc) is not what this page is about, neither what we're talking about: we're talking about the cost of developing the game per-se only, and that means creating the game itself, the server system, and the server usage so far until the game is fully released. The TheRegister page you posted talks (again) about the costs once the game WAS ALREADY released. If you wanted to add WoW to the list, then you'd have to put the cost that it took on reaching it's first version, as Star Citizen is currently all about.

About the money raised vs cost: You want speculations about that? Then here's mine: a Hollywood cast, hiring CryEngine engines plus some of the most talented devs in all areas out there, Google servers, a revolutionary engine that does what nobody has dared to do before, dozens of ships with different unique gameplay and 100 systems' worth of content? I'd even say that it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were even a bit on the short stick in money terms. And now tell me, why YOUR "speculation" is any better than MINE?

Also, yes. I didn't know that "burn rate" meant "money spent so far", sorry for not being neither an english speaker or a Wall Street geek, and also thank you for just not using plain terms to define that equally simple meaning. In any case, that definition doesn't change my statement above.

And as I said, you have neither proof that the other game companies have also spent the quantity that they're reported to the media that they have spent. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that costs are exaggerated in order to gain the attention of the masses. If speculative cynism was the rule, then this page wouldn't exist at all.

Also, avoid patronizing me. With your "SC wastes money" statements, and your obsession over it over other games that are even more worthy of leaving this list, we all already know what you're all about. Also, it's against the rules. - KurtMaverick (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting issue; at first, I didn't see why it wouldn't be included, but the IP made some good points. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a more specific definition of "development cost". Surely, the IP's estimate of World of Warcraft's costs is a hyperbole, but surely, every year since its release, more money has been put into its new content. The source used for World of Warcraft is about Blizzard's budget in 2004, when the game was released. The meteor scenario, though downright silly, is also something we should keep in mind. If the game were to be canceled right now for whatever reason, the development cost might be a lot lower than its estimate.

I'd like to suggest to only list video games that are either released or canceled, and to only list the development cost at release or cancelation. This way, we do not have to worry about the development cost of DLC and expansions, nor is there any risk of crystal balling. This would mean Star Citizen doesn't meet the requirements of the list yet, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about WoW in the slightest, you can put it there or not as you see fit. But unless the list undergoes a cleanup and all non-completed or cancelled games are removed, SC has as much right of being on it as any other game.

And I don't see why cancelled games should be removed and not remain, if only for historical purposes. My recommendation? Split the list in two in the same page: One list for completed games, another one for WIP/Cancelled ones, then put SC in the 2nd one. Everybody is happy. - KurtMaverick (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing about canceled video games is that it is very easy to pick a point from where we could theoretically "count" how much the game has cost. If we assume the from the day the it was canceled on, no more development money went into the project, we can easily get a fixed number. I am just trying to create a working inclusion criteria, because apparently, the current rules are too vague. WoW will get in regardless, but it was brought up because there are other video games that are in this list while still being expanded. I believe "at the time of release or cancelation" is an excellent inclusion criteria because it deals with all kinds of WIP video games and gives a fixed point that we should report on here.

Kurt, you seem to have an interest in getting Star Citizen in this list that is unrelated to "improving Wikipedia". I understand wanting it in because a lot of money is currently going into the development, but in general, wait and see is the best way to handle something like this. ~Mable (chat) 13:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I've added Eurogamer source to this information (thx for the hint NinjaRobotPirate). As IP user noticed earlier, maybe adding annotation saying that this is an estimate based on the total money wouldn't be a bad idea. Sir Lothar (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mable, I entirely fail to see how not including a game which is being transparent minute after minute about how many funds have got so far from donations is not related to "improve Wikipedia". That phrase sounds more like cheap demagogy rather than making any sense. And as I said, I STILL don't see by far any similar ruckus about cancelled games that are on the list. How curious. - KurtMaverick (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The ranking of 'Star Citizen' appears to be contentious when comparing development funds vs. actual costs, the recent re-ranking of the game title to 30th appears to be related to the cost on a per-title basis. The current criteria for "List of most expensive video games to develop" is based upon individual titles. Inspection of the original Kick Starter shows Star Citizen as Single Player as well as a Persistent universe but this is muddied by the recent package split https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15189-Package-Split-Information and that the 'Squadron 42' mission disk 1 mentioned on the funding goals page https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals is included in the 6 million stretch goal but will need to be purchased by those who purchase after that date https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXpx2C6rFAc per Chris Roberts.

The current situation does not meet the criteria for a single title as there is 'Star Citizen' for the persistent universe, 'Squadron 42: Episode 1' and 'Squadron 42: Episode 2' as separately purchasable titles sharing funding and resources. There is no publicly available information detailing a breakdown of the costs or how much is shared so it is not accurate to list 'Star Citizen' or either of the separate single player titles.

If 'Star Citizen' is considered a 'single title' then we need to review other games for inclusion on the list as any titles that are related and in any way share resources can be considered a 'single title' - this means including DLC. By this new criteria the budget of 'Half-Life 2' should also include 'Episode 1' and 'Episode 2', the budget of the Call of Duty titles becomes difficult to calculate with all the shared code and assets.

At the very least it seems that editors here agree to disagree that 'Star Citizen' meets the same criteria as others and as such there needs to be notes regarding this to ensure readers are properly informed and are not given inaccurate misinformation. EyeBeeM (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As a Star Citizen backer, I find it misleading that it's here, the link used is the amount funded not the amount current spent on developing it, although the developer said around 20 million that all money will go towards the game, they aren't spending it as quickly as they burn it. On top of that it is unknown what the subscribers put into the marketing. I suggest it gets removed until someone actually releases costings. Rentaspoon (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone has a reliable source stating an actual development cost, it doesn't belong on this list. We know they've raised millions. We know they've said they'll use it for the game. We don't know how much of that has actually been spent on the game at this time. The bottom line is "total cost" of the game is unsourced. We also know the game is now split into two projects, and we don't know how the budget is split between them. We definitely cannot assume at this point, over two years after this all started, that all 140+ million has gone directly into the game alone. This also ties into other talk page discussions at Star Citizen itself and List of highest funded crowdfunding projects where the continual updating of Star Citizen without reliable secondary sourcing has been called into question. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Unless someone has a reliable source stating an actual development cost"

I forgot about all those wonderful "reliable sources" from the "Top 10" websites that this article cites. You're pretty ignorant of that fact it seems. If this is the case, please remove all video games from the list which there is not sourced development cost available. Also, there are countless citations which link to "Top 10" pages" These don't cite any sources and only give "estimates" in this list which need to be rectified. This Wiki page is in poor shape and does not meet Wikipedia standards for sources. If anything, the development cost of Star Citizen is the most transparent of the games in position 5 and bellow. Ziros (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, it seems this page is woefully out of date and does not include any games newer than 2015? Additionally, this list does not include Elder Scrolls Online with an estimated $200 Million in development cost? Ziros (talk)

Ferret seems bias and should not be the deciding factor for the determination on wheather content should be added or removed. https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7536669/#Comment_7536669 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziros22 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not have an account on forums.robertsspaceindustries.com or any Star Citizen related site. That poster is simply someone with a similar username. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I will concede that Star Citizen should not be on the list because no other in-development games are represented on the list. This list still needs some major updates and the sources need to be corrected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziros22 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't disagree at all, but content is handled bit by bit. If you have any particular sources that we could use or specific examples where we can make an update, please post a new section about that so it won't be cluttered into this unrelated discussion. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

COD MW2 apparently the Escapist Website is the only source needed to put that game at the top of the list. - either be consistent or stop editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.48.242 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, Ferret removing Star Citizen from list - where a game gets its funding from is irrelevant to the list of "most expensive" games to develop. No other source on this list has anywhere near as much detail as the amount of money spent or devs hired- majority of sources in list are from developers who claim how much was spent - the same as Star Citizens Budget - there are also countless testimonials from devs and critics who consistently claim that CIG is running out of funds before raising more. Average game developer salary is $80,000 x 420 CIG employees working on the game = current cash burn of $33m per year. Company had 6 employees in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.48.242 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided a source that directly states a dollar amount spent on Star Citizen alone. By that I mean, it does not include Squadron 42, basic operation of the business, purchase/renting of office space, Chris Roberts' salary as a business owner, etc. These are not part of a game's budget. Additionally, we don't know how much money has been invested outside of crowdfunding from Roberts and co, or other third parties. Everything else, such as estimating programmer salary times the number of programmers, is original research. The amount raised in crowd funding cannot be assumed to be the development budget of Star Citizen. Please also read over reliable sourcing and secondary sourcing. The MW2 source is a reliable secondary source (Escapist, backed by LA Times). -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It should still be on the list with "still in development" clarification or in a separate table of unfinished games. You can't deny the amount of already collected funds. Gendalv (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not List of highest funded crowdfunding projects, which does list Star Citizen. It is the list of most expensive to develop, which we lack any sourcing on in regards to budget. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To add to this again: The issue isn't that it's still in development. The issue is that we have no sourcing that discusses a "development budget" or "marketing budget", either one. Crowdfunding amounts are not the same as development budgets. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, and is there any "sourcing" on any other of the games of the list by any chance, apart from the one that the companies give themselves, or the one that gaming sites publish because they've been feed the numbers of the companies themselves? If you want a totally objective list, then you'd have to open a investigation done by a 3rd-party accountability company on EVERY game and company on the list. Other than that, every data showed there is the same that Star Citizen itself also provides. So yeah, not including it is totally bullshit.

Star Citizen devs claim that the money pledged goes directly to the game's development. That they keep a separate funding model (subscribers) for video content and advertisement, and yet another one for events only proves their point. If you can't believe them, then this list is useless to begin with, as you can't believe any word from any other developer then.

I'm gonna give it some time to see if someone here recovers a bit of common sense, if not I'll edit this page myself once SC reaches 200m and rightfully places itself as the most expensive game ever to develop (currently almost 190m).NoFaithInHumanity (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources say, under the expectation that reliable sources perform due diligence. SC has never claimed to have a particular budget, nor have any sources reported such. Taking "crowdfunding" as "budget" is original research. Any such addition without new sources specifically discussing a budget will simply be removed again. -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

So, first of all, how many games on the list doesn't have any "reliable source" (in your particular sense of the definition) to begin with?

Second of all, if "news organizations" are reported to be reliable sources, then hey, no problem at all! We just have to wait till some gaming journalism site (or sites) reports that SC has reached 200m, then post it. There, you've a reliable source. Easy, right? Or not even THAT is enough for you? (hence what I said before about an independent company doing the investigation on the matter, cos frankly it's the only logical next step that it occurs to me).

Third of all: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". OK, and I repeat for the third time, how exactly THAT doesn't get applied to any other game of the list? Or just because those other games aren't crowdfunded does that mean that the numbers that their devs publish (or God's know where they were obtained) are 100% accurate? That's just a complete fallacy.

"SC has never claimed to have a particular budget, nor have any sources reported such."....except that they totally did, and they had news outlets (sources) confirming it so (with now outdated numbers, of course). That you don't wanna see it it's another matter. I don't know why you're asking anything extra of SC in order to be included on the list, and frankly I see that as subjective and abusive behaviour.

And you can threaten to erase anything you want. I highly doubt that you're the top of the line here in the Wikipedia. I could always discuss it with a superior of yours (or rely on democracy) to see if they can see reason and stop allowing you editing the page. If you cannot see that you're simply not right in this matter, then hey, suit yourself. NoFaithInHumanity (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Persistent editing by banned user

Special:Contributions/79.71.68.47 is very obviously User:Renamed_user_nnnnnnnnnn trying to evade his ban, so I'm not sure where to report this. Phantom Hoover (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Renamed_user_nnnnnnnnnn Meters (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Figure update notes

Work in progress, gathering some notes for replacing bad sources and updating figures:

• Elder Scrolls Online $200 million? Looking to see if anyone can find a source. The best I can find are so far are forum posts, reddit posts, and one or two blogs that reference a twitter post by Superannuation, which was later deleted. [1]. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• World of Warcraft: MMOHuts is unreliable. Upkeep costs is $200+ million for first four years of operation, per an analysts call. May not include original budget, nor are we necessarily considering upkeep budgets. Kotaku source.
• Shenmue: Currently listed at 70 total, with a reliable source for 47 million in development, and an unreliable deadlink for the marketing and total. The source for GTA IV ([2] also says 70, but that might be citogensis.

Note: Wayback is having trouble, can't get to archives for deadlinks currently.

-- ferret (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Source for the Elder Scrolls Online budget is a Linkedln Profile.I browse Linkedin on a daily basis for Info. This one. But she removed the info when Superannuation posted that tweet.I am not sure if that is where he got his info from, but that is where i saw it mentioned(this was back in December 2013).It basically said from what i recall something like Managing a budget of $200+ Million.Timur9008 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That would basically be unreliable self-published, so we won't be able to use it. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, i was just clarifying where i saw it being mentioned.Timur9008 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Finally got the archive for blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever to load. I'm almost certain nearly every entry using this needs removed. Half the list says "This is only rumored" or "No exact figure has been found". This is a blog in the end and clearly fails as a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Found something on Shenmue [Sub required]. Here is what it says(the sentence in question).

Sega's forthcoming arcade adventure Shenmue has cost an estimated $20 million to produce and, although it should have no trouble breaking even, not every publisher is prepared to risk such amounts on an untried formula.Timur9008 (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems post-release statements from Sega are 70 million, while Yu Suzuki claimed it was only 47 million total. Shenmue also has these figures. I think we can leave this one as is for now. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Halo 3, there is this[Sub required].I found nothing on World of Warcraft, Too Human or Metal Geat Solid 4.So nothing there.

The sentence in question.

Which is understandable: Like any eagerly anticipated sequel, Halo 3 was launched at midnight, after a marketing campaign that rivaled the unveiling of a summer movie, complete with soft-drink partnerships (Mountain Dew); it has the production budget of a mid-range studio film (around $40 million), and was released in 17 languages on seven continents, and is expected to sell 4 million copies even before the holidays.Timur9008 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding TESO, it looks like a quote regarding old financial data degraded over time.

A TESO forum post from 2015 quotes: "ZeniMax announced today that it has recieved a $300 million USD investment from Providence Equity Partners Inc for convertible preferred ZeniMax stock. This cash will be used to fund its newly formed online division (headed up by former Mythic Exec Producer Matt Firor) plus develop and publish future games as well."[[3]]

Unfortunately, said quote is uncited (and contains spelling errors). Searching found several articles from 2007 in which the first sentence was the same, but the second read: "The proceeds of the investment will be used to fund future growth, increase game development and publishing, facilitate acquisitions, and finance massively multiplayer online games." [[4]] Dicrostonyx (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017

Majority of sources in this list are from unreliable 3rd parties - whilst sources from the developers themselves are being removed. (likely due to vandalism).

Need to go through all sources and validate. Scottym90 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests are for making specific changes. This request has no specific edit being requested. This is just a general talk page message (that should probably be more specific even as that.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of most expensive video games to develop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.com/gta-5-costs-265-million-develop-market-making-it-most-expensive-video-game-ever-produced-report
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120721091308/http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-final-fantasy-vii to http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-final-fantasy-vii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about default sorting

If this list's name is qualified intentionally(?) with "most expensive to DEVELOP", then shouldn't it be sorted by development costs? I guess I'm not sure what else it could be named but just putting it out there. When I came to this page, I was slightly surprised to see that MW2 was at the top, but upon further observation, it looks like most of that cost was marketing (which I would hardly consider development) and it's development costs were at the threshold to even be on this page. I guess one could argue that it's not the "development" of the game itself (programming, graphics, voice work), but also the development of the product and investment in its success. But as a user (and developer) I was much more interested in the top games by development costs rather than the amount of money a Publisher blew on getting celebrities to sell the game. When sorted by development cost it becomes much more accurate to the title and more interesting (SWOTR - hmm, GTA5 - of course, Destiny - makes sense). Anywho, just my two cents. Sorry if I didn't do this "Talk" correctly (first time).

Zace^Talk 07:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The biggest issue is how difficult it is to source this list in the first place. For example, many entries have a total budget only, and we don't know the break down. -- ferret (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Mafia III's budget

I don't have any sources but if we take the soundtrack of Mafia III we can see that they gave a lot of money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costas theodorou7 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. When you have reliable sources on the budget we can include it. Otherwise, we can't. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)