How Much Did Modern Warfare 2 Cost to Make?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

slowpoke999:

Srkkl:

I don't think judging a game you haven't even played a demo of is very smart, and "glorified DLC"? The only game I would call glorified DLC would be L4D.

OT: Thats pretty insane, at least it wasn't like the 400(?) million spent on Transformers 2 and then the final product sucking.

Ok lemme just put my 2 cents in and officially close the gates of hell before any other fanboys attack you. L4D has been heralded as one of the best zombie fps of all times and often said to be a game where multiplayer feels necessary. Unless you meant L4d2, i don't think a game can be called a DLC, hell even an expansion to another game when it is BIGGER then the original. I've been playing l4d2 and some campaigns feel like endurance battles they're so freaking long.

It's pretty easy to be hailed as "the best zombie FPS" when I can count all the other Zombie FPS's out there on one hand. To clarify I meant L4D the first one, I'm not wasting money on the secound. The first had extremely tedious and repetitive campaigns that all seemed exactly the same with the different ways to escape, and the L4D2 demo made it seem exactly the same as the first. There were six wepons not including pistols and explosives and that made the game super boring.

Srkkl:

I don't think judging a game you haven't even played a demo of is very smart, and "glorified DLC"? The only game I would call glorified DLC would be L4D.

OT: Thats pretty insane, at least it wasn't like the 400(?) million spent on Transformers 2 and then the final product sucking.

The game is 4-6 hours long. You got one Co-op mode that is new. And you got some new MP maps, kill streaks, death streaks etc. Very minor things when considering all of the things they removed. All that sounds like what you would get in a good DLC. So I give you that, this is a good DLC for MW. Or it would be a good game if it was around $30 (I don't care if it sold for less than that in the UK at the beginning, since that wasn't the retail price).

If this game didn't have it's price jacked up, then I would be almost OK with the part of it being so short. But they jacked up the price. On a very short SP game with largely the same MP as last time, only gimped on the PC. The whole game is gimped on the PC. Luckily, gamers are fixing that.

And I sure as hell won't buy it. Which means I just have to research it the best I can in order to criticize it. Which I think I have. So I am entitled to judge all I like,
Never played L4D, so cannot comment on that. But from what I have seen the second game ads enough to be called a game on it's own. Being longer, bigger and better than the first one. The only thing MW2 did bigger than MW is the amount of cheesy action scenes. And probably a few new guns.

Edit:

Srkkl:
It's pretty easy to be hailed as "the best zombie FPS" when I can count all the other Zombie FPS's out there on one hand. To clarify I meant L4D the first one, I'm not wasting money on the secound. The first had extremely tedious and repetitive campaigns that all seemed exactly the same with the different ways to escape, and the L4D2 demo made it seem exactly the same as the first. There were six wepons not including pistols and explosives and that made the game super boring.

How does that make it seem like DLC? I have tried the L4D2 demo, which according you to is exactly the same as L4D. If it is, I regret not buying it when it came out, because it was one of the most exciting MP sessions I have ever played. The pressure and everything was awesome. Just what I expected from a zombie run-and-gun game. Of course every campaign is the same. You are running away from a zombie infestation. What else can you do? Which is perfectly fine, and from my small experience, is a blast playing with friends.
You don't need more weapons either, since you are playing normal people. No soldiers here. And the weapons are what they can find left behind by other survivors.
I just cannot see where L4D or L4D2 can be called DLC. While MW2 have every reason to be called just that.

Oh, and I did play the demo for MW. It was boring. The same gameplay as every other shooter out there. If MW2 is the same, only better (according to most of those who say I should buy it), then MW2 is boring. Unlike FPS games that actually add something new. Like... oh. L4D?

Jaqen Hghar:

The game is 4-6 hours long. You got one Co-op mode that is new. And you got some new MP maps, kill streaks, death streaks etc. Very minor things when considering all of the things they removed. All that sounds like what you would get in a good DLC. So I give you that, this is a good DLC for MW. Or it would be a good game if it was around $30 (I don't care if it sold for less than that in the UK at the beginning, since that wasn't the retail price).

If this game didn't have it's price jacked up, then I would be almost OK with the part of it being so short. But they jacked up the price. On a very short SP game with largely the same MP as last time, only gimped on the PC. The whole game is gimped on the PC. Luckily, gamers are fixing that.

And I sure as hell won't buy it. Which means I just have to research it the best I can in order to criticize it. Which I think I have. So I am entitled to judge all I like,
Never played L4D, so cannot comment on that. But from what I have seen the second game ads enough to be called a game on it's own. Being longer, bigger and better than the first one. The only thing MW2 did bigger than MW is the amount of cheesy action scenes. And probably a few new guns.

Edit:

Srkkl:
It's pretty easy to be hailed as "the best zombie FPS" when I can count all the other Zombie FPS's out there on one hand. To clarify I meant L4D the first one, I'm not wasting money on the secound. The first had extremely tedious and repetitive campaigns that all seemed exactly the same with the different ways to escape, and the L4D2 demo made it seem exactly the same as the first. There were six wepons not including pistols and explosives and that made the game super boring.

How does that make it seem like DLC? I have tried the L4D2 demo, which according you to is exactly the same as L4D. If it is, I regret not buying it when it came out, because it was one of the most exciting MP sessions I have ever played. The pressure and everything was awesome. Just what I expected from a zombie run-and-gun game. Of course every campaign is the same. You are running away from a zombie infestation. What else can you do? Which is perfectly fine, and from my small experience, is a blast playing with friends.
You don't need more weapons either, since you are playing normal people. No soldiers here. And the weapons are what they can find left behind by other survivors.
I just cannot see where L4D or L4D2 can be called DLC. While MW2 have every reason to be called just that.

Oh, and I did play the demo for MW. It was boring. The same gameplay as every other shooter out there. If MW2 is the same, only better (according to most of those who say I should buy it), then MW2 is boring. Unlike FPS games that actually add something new. Like... oh. L4D?

1. MW2 added a lot of new awesome stuff as well as evened out everthing that was bad about the first one (Juggernaut, Martyrdom) making the multiplayer actually really different and a lot more fun.

2. The campaign for me was about 9 hours on regular mainly because I took my time and actually enjoyed it and even though the shortness of a game really makes or breaks a game for me (I love games like Fallout 3 that take hours) and when I heard the how short MW2 was I was kinda pissed at first but honestly it was one of the coolest/engaging first person experiences I've ever seen in any game, It actually made me feel real emotion and if it was any longer the the story would have gotten bad, it was a perfect time frame. Now how I do accept this game may not be for you I would at least suggest renting it to experience the campaign the greatness really do make up for the length.

3. The co-op mode that you seemed to shrug off is really awesome with a friend that knows what they are doing, they made it so you can actually put military tactics in to it and it makes it a really fun experience.

Also I didn't think they had a demo for the game. EDIT: They didn't make a demo, so really, unless you play even a little of it you can't really judge it, research or not.

On the topic of Left 4 Dead.
1. If you really don't like shortness each of the 4 campaigns of the game was an average of 30 minutes on normal difficulty with 4 friends playing. Each one has absolutely no story accept get to the Helicopter, Boat, Airplane, Armored car, which make the game unengaging and uninteresting.

2. The gameplay was pretty crappy (I don't get how somthing slapping you makes you unable to move) it felt like you were floating the whole time, they have no iron sights but an accuracy rating at each checkpoint which pissed me off a lot.

3. The online versus on the first one if you were the zombie side you died so fast and your attacks were all up close accept for the smoker and that did the shittyest damage ever and it was HELL playing with people who didn't have mics in which means anyone who wasn't on your friends list.

Also every reason you said MW2 was DLC is exactly what L4D2 did, just add small improvements, which is what a sequel should you know, do. However the original was sucky, short, and boring, and when the only "improvements" are melee wepons and different looking guns.

Kollega:

Nimbus:
The whole argument of "it would have cost too much to make the PC version good" just went flying out the fucking window. On fire.

Exactly, my friend. They spend 50 mil to make it, 200 mil to hype it... couldn't they just hire two hundred extra programmers to make dedicated servers in a week?

Because it wasn't worth it relative to PC sales, not to sales as a whole. What's the breakdown for sales console to PC? I saw something that said the 360 took up 60% of sales. When you factor in PS3, I'd say you could count the PC sales in the 15 to 20% area...so the basic argument isn't that it cost too much, its that it cost too much to make a specific addition to the game for a low selling version.

And besides, BIGGEST SELLING GAME EVER! In spite of the "boycott". Why would they care?

Bigeyez:

SantoUno:
recouped all their losses on launch day.

$310 Million > $250 Million.

OT: Not really all that surprising. With development costs on the rise these type of prices will eventually be the norm. I'd love to see how much cash was thrown at marketting for Halo 3 and ODST

P.S. It's funny to see all the troll worthy comments already hitting this thread. =p MewTwo hate is officially the new Halo hate.

I think much of the hate comes from the fact that you can sell anything if you spend enough on advertising.

You could sell genocide, shitty world leaders, twilight, or modern warfare 2.

Don't get me wrong it isn't a bad game. But there is nothing about it that sets it apart from anything else in its genre that was done marginally well. Which is the only reason I'm bothered. People praise it like it broke some ground when it didn't.

I don't mind things doing well because people are suckers for marketing, but I'd prefer people not act like intense marketing == quality product.

Some times you have to do this:
image

to get this:
image

The Rogue Wolf:

Teh_Doomage:
I honestly am tired of hearing of MewTwo...it is a milestone, and it show's that games are in the realm of movie production in terms of cost and marketing.

It's also approaching the same amount of time you get to spend enjoying a movie, if this poll is to be believed....

I've always said that quality beats quantity, but really- $50 million in development costs for this game? I would LOVE to see an actual breakdown of what was spent where. And TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS FOR MARKETING?! I must really be out of touch, because the first I ever heard of the game was on a news article right here on the Escapist, and I can count the number of times I've seen ads for the game (outside of the Internet) on one hand.

I have to agree here. Could they not have simply, I dunno, spent more of that advertising money on things like dedicated servers, and sorting out the awful multiplayer imbalances?

gee IDGAS ... time to move on and give us dlc ... asap

id like some FREE DLC for this game now. Lets see what else they can do

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here