Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has an interesting game budget tidbit about StarCraft II, saying: "Blizzard's parent company, Activision Blizzard, has spent more than $100 million developing the computer-based game." Thanks GameSpot where they note that this figure represents development costs, and does not include the marketing budget for the real-time strategy sequel.

View
66 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

66. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 21, 2010, 19:50 Eldaron Imotholin
 
Did you guys know developing StarCraft II cost more than 100.000.000 dollars? Awfully lot for futuristic Warcraft III expansion with aliens!  
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 21, 2010, 12:47 Mr. Tact
 
Exactly, Verno. This is true for a VERY LARGE majority of the cases. There might be the rare exception here and there, but generally people who can't lose weight simply can't/won't stop eating.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 21, 2010, 11:32 Verno
 
Weight loss is simple caloric math, exercise just helps burn calories. Other than that the two aren't really related unless you examine metabolic rate and other factors.

People who struggle with weight always amuse me because they're often over complicating what is a very simple process. They will do insane diets, try pills and many other nonsense scenarios instead of simply limiting their portions and diet appropriately.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, 7 Days to Die, Dragon Age Origins
Watching: The Canal, Brazil, The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 21, 2010, 10:38 Mr. Tact
 
BobBob wrote on Jul 18, 2010, 07:33:
Someone should do a study and find that non hand-held consoles and desktop gaming correlate with obesity.
Obesity has little to do with activity and is mostly about intake vs. output. Which I properly demonstrated by losing weight despite continuing to be a lazy couch potato. Activity increases fitness. Fitness and weight loss are often related, however they are not directly linked.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 20, 2010, 13:46 Prez
 
Verno wrote on Jul 20, 2010, 11:14:
No that's pretty dumb. People aren't exercising with their laptop while playing Crysis. You generally put your laptop down and game.

WRONG! I am jogging when I play Quake Live on my Dell Laptop. That's why my ranking is so low. Yeah, that's it.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 20, 2010, 11:14 Verno
 
BobBob wrote on Jul 18, 2010, 07:33:
Someone should do a study and find that non hand-held consoles and desktop gaming correlate with obesity. Sitting on your ass all day in front of a TV or monitor can't be healthy.

Laptops and netbooks aren't so bad because at least you are encouraged to be sort of mobile.

No that's pretty dumb. People aren't exercising with their laptop while playing Crysis. You generally put your laptop down and game.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, 7 Days to Die, Dragon Age Origins
Watching: The Canal, Brazil, The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 18, 2010, 19:28 Sepharo
 
Tumbler wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 11:21:
Console gamers don't hate PC games. PC gamers however...
QFT. Console games don't have time to get jealous of pc games, too many games to play.

I've been out all weekend, so sorry for the late reply.

Somehow my comment about GameStop employees being conditioned to hate PC games got misconstrued as console gamers hating PC games.

GameStop does hate PC games, because they don't sell and you can't sell them used.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 18, 2010, 11:23 JohnnyRotten
 
Maybe they could save money by paying everyone who would have bought it $10 instead of making the game. Just saying...

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 18, 2010, 10:33 Eldaron Imotholin
 
BobBob wrote on Jul 18, 2010, 07:33:
Someone should do a study and find that non hand-held consoles and desktop gaming correlate with obesity. Sitting on your ass all day in front of a TV or monitor can't be healthy.

Laptops and netbooks aren't so bad because at least you are encouraged to be sort of mobile.

Where did that come from?
 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 18, 2010, 07:33 BobBob
 
Someone should do a study and find that non hand-held consoles and desktop gaming correlate with obesity. Sitting on your ass all day in front of a TV or monitor can't be healthy.

Laptops and netbooks aren't so bad because at least you are encouraged to be sort of mobile.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 18, 2010, 07:14 Eldaron Imotholin
 
spindoctor wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 11:05:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 10:25:
Whereupon the thrashing it's likely to receive by the counter monkey conditioned to hate PC games simply for being PC games, will cause them to change their mind.

Console gamers don't hate PC games. PC gamers however...

QFBS

This comment was edited on Jul 18, 2010, 07:24.
 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 21:08 ASeven
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 20:21:
Console gamers don't hate PC games. PC gamers however...

I think you need to peruse the Gametrailers boards more often.

Or most console-centric boards.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 21:05 Luke
 
Cutter wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 20:06:
I call bullshit. There is no way in hell it cost anywhere close to 100 million to make.

If blizz says so it is the TRUTH .... many thinks Rolleyes
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 20:21 Jerykk
 
Console gamers don't hate PC games. PC gamers however...

I think you need to peruse the Gametrailers boards more often.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 20:06 Cutter
 
I call bullshit. There is no way in hell it cost anywhere close to 100 million to make.
 
Avatar 25394
 

"Nobody wants to be nobody in America. Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that someone became famous because they were special. Now people are considered special just for being famous. Fame, itself, is its own virtue.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 19:36 Ledge
 
Tumbler wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 11:21:
Console gamers don't hate PC games. PC gamers however...
QFT. Console games don't have time to get jealous of pc games, too many games to play.

thats where quality vs. quantity comes into it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 15:54 theyarecomingforyou
 
2. Shared code-base of 3D engine with D3 - probably a bigger development budget allocated to the engine development team, since SC is coming out first most of the development costs would be allocated to SC. Depends how they categorize their costs.
When you put it like that the cost actually makes a lot of sense, as it makes a more impressive headline. It becomes much less significant when you consider Starcraft II will be three separate games, in addition to Diablo III and any further expansions it has.

Still, I can't help but wonder whether they couldn't have been a bit more economical, as $100M is a lot of money for a game that doesn't seem a whole lot better than the competition.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 15:47 beaves
 
simple... pay 100 people $200,000 over 5 years  
Avatar 14756
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 14:46 Scottish Martial Arts
 
ASJD wrote on Jul 16, 2010, 22:32:
At this point, I think they're really overrating how popular this game is going to be.

If this bombs I'm going to be giddy.

You can kiss what's left of PC gaming goodbye at that point.

As for the cost, it sounds about right. The game has been in development since 2003, which averages out to a little less than $15 million per year of development, which is about average for a AAA title. I think this is just an instance where costs are high because development was so long.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: WSJ: StarCraft II Cost More Than $100M Jul 17, 2010, 14:42 Charlie_Six
 
Sometimes I wonder if these game and movie budget costs are wildly inaccurate, and purposefully released to the public in this way so that people place more value in a property, which thus drives people to buy the game/movie.

"My game cost $100 million to make. So you know there's a lot of value in this!"

 
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo