[quote name='mykevermin']I think the data are way off, primarily due to this being a Japanese analysis. In Japan, this might be the case.
In America, there are *far* more Xbox titles that are released, so my problem with this research is that it is analyzing Xbox development costs in a market that has treated it with nothing less than the greatest of disdain. In no way, shape, or form is their market comparable with the United States. Yes, sales don't affect the development costs; however, sales do affect what gets released (and thus, the pool of selectable titles to perform this analysis on).
Interesting and *possibly* of importance in Japan, but meaningless here.[/QUOTE]
In addition, the available talent pool for programmers who are adept with DirectX on PCs makes it much easier to recruit coders for Xbox projects, and the far greater market for Xbox games in the West also means that many more devs with Xbox experience competing for jobs. If Guy #1 wants $50K for a project with a 1 year schedule there is likely another guy with comparable skills but hungrier who'll do it for $45K. This can be modified by whether a candidate's resume includes a lot of hit titles or a history of troubled projects. OTOH, the lesser talent pool in Japan (where native PC games are also a far smaller market than in the West) likely means that when a project gets greenlighted the guys with real experience of the PC/Xbox and DirectX can demand higher salaries than those competing for work on the PS2. It would depend on whether the guy has a quality track record or is just claiming ability on any platform that offers a paying job.
It is true that a platform that allows you to do more also requires more labor to exploit those features but it can also be that only applies in those situation where the platform is being fully exploited, which hasn't been the case for much of the Xbox library, especially multi-platform titles. OTOH, it can also involve tremendous effort to get the most out of a less powerful platform that due to its massive installed base remains the place where the greatest rewards are to be found. The PS2 version of RE4 is an example of this. Capcom really wants this to measure up well tot he GameCube version and garner the kind of sales the PS2 can deliver. Since it is a port a major portion of the cost for originating the design and art & media assets has already been covered by the GC version. (Depending on Japanese accounting laws and the time frame involved they may try to split those costs between both platforms and retroactively give the GC version a greater profit margin.) But the sheer amount of time require to optimize each scene to best match the GC version will be costly. The PS2 market is so much bigger than anything else that it is worth the effort.
What I find very anomalous is the claim that DS projects are coming in so cheap. Considering the similarities and the expectation that some elements of a good DS game will involve some things beyond the GBA's capbility, I'd expect the DS projects to, at the very least, be equal in cost to GBA projects and get more expensive as the greater storage capacity of the DS cart format and greater potential complexity and detail of DS software. Does anyone really believe that Nintendo spent anywhere near that small an amount on Mario 64/DS, even when it was mostly a port? I can believe something very simplistic like Zoo Keeper came in for that low a figure but not any of the titles that really define the DS.
I'd very much like to see the list of games that were used to create this CESA report. The few Xbox titles produced in Japan are more often high end titles like Panzer Dragoon Saga with long schedules. But a major portion of those PS2 projects may have been items that would only appear at bargain prices if released in the West. That could tilt the average by quite a lot.
