Detroit Become Human Budget Is 30 Million

New details emerge on the Detroit: Become Human budget, and current state of Heavy Rain sales.

[UCForce]

I’m impressed by this. I just hope QD finishes this game as soon as possible.

[Aceman18]

Where's that person on here who's always arguing game development is overly expensive? This also makes Remedy comment seem suspect.

It's all about how you use the funds, and QD did a great good on a modest budget.

[UCForce]

Horizon Zero Dawn budget was 50 millions dollars budget and it did well.

[Cohagen420]

Its not expensive when you're trying not to hire every big name actor to impress the casuals..

[BigWan78]

@Aceman18 ...

Detroit and Quantum Break are very different styles of games... VERY DIFFERENT...
so of course the budgets will be different.

[DaDrunkenJester]

Sorry, but this comparison is bad. QB has actual full on 3rd person gameplay combat, with a mix of lengthy in game cut scenes and a TV show. Of course the budget is going to be bigger. Detroit, much like Cages' other games are mostly movies with minimal gameplay.

[AspiringProGenji]

Hiring celebs and movie actors to make a subpar Tv show should have cost a lot so yeah... they should have scrapped that. The comparison is warranted since it shows how design decisions can inflate budget.

[DarXyde]

Remedy is just bad with making decisions. Why would you cast someone with a 9- figure net worth?

An actor's net worth is a reasonable indication of how much they want before casting. If that were not the case, we'd see anyone casting Christian Bale and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Regardless, they honestly can't complain. QD just manages their budgets better. I love it when a game comes in under budget.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

*Patiently waits for some developer to say single player games are too expensive to produce now...*

[Obscure_Observer]

@Aceman18

Modest budget? How? 30 million for a game like Detroit is A LOT OF MONEY!

The Witcher 3 costs about 46 milion to develop for 3 platforms!

If Detroid costs about 30 milion to develop, i would never trust Quantic Dream on a project as big as The Witcher game!

[WilliamSheridan]

I'm not interested in FMV QuickTime type games. Looks beautiful, but considering how little interaction there is I expected way better than Uncharted 4 graphics, not just being on par.

[G20WLY]

Umm.. What? FMV?? 😂

[WilliamSheridan]

FMV QuickTime type. I know it's not FMV, but might as well be with it being a QuickTime game with a little exploration worked in.

[Eonjay]

The game is all interaction. It is literally an interactive story. What is way better than Uncharted 4? UC4 is the best in terms of graphics so you want better than the best and the best is just par? It sounds like you are trying to force yourself to hate this game lol. Just give it a chance and watch some play throughs. Everything is not for everyone and thats okay.

[CrimsonWing69]

Do you know what FMV stands for?

[Lamboomington]

"I expected way better than Uncharted 4 graphics, not just being on par."

You say that like it's easy to do. It isn't really on par with Uncharted 4 overall imo, but that depends on what you're comparing, the gameplay or cutscenes. Uncharted 4's realtime cutscenes are honestly like CGI a lot of the time.

[Phoenix76]

Wow, last time I heard about fmv it was for night trap lmao 😂

[TheColbertinator]

Fmv? Quicktime? The 90s are over

[G20WLY]

You're trying too hard pal. Take a break 😉

[WilliamSheridan]

It's an FMV QUICKTIME styled game using real time graphics. There is a reason this type of game doesn't sell...

[G20WLY]

Please stop, I'm embarrassed for you 😂

[WilliamSheridan]

Real Time... FMV... Who cares? Either way you hit a button and watch what happens. Exciting.

[FATAL1TY]

CGI Quality + low cost

$ony is The King of Gaming

[DeadSilence]

Seems low for such a fantastic looking tittle.

Once again Sony 1st and 2nd perry always pull some tricks and magic, Horizon was fairly cheap compared to other AAA and better than most all together lol

[kevnb]

the game is barely interactive and they share tech between studios, why would it cost much more than that?

[morganfell]

Barely interactive? Actually due to the myriad number of choices and various possible outcomes it is more interactive than a linear story shooter.

[neutralgamer1992]

kevnb

if you watched some of sony's E3 it was stated QB built their own engine from ground up

[LP-Eleven]

"the game is barely interactive"

Oh, so you've played it? Just stop.

OT: Most Sony games are within that range! Fantastic, regardless! Should make that back with ease.

[kevnb]

@morganfell so you’re telling me a game that plays different cinematic based on choices but limits nearly everything else is more interactive than a game with interactive enemies and large areas to explore?

[WilliamSheridan]

Yes, he's saying that a cinematic game is barely interactive. Its like a choose your own adventure book. You make a choice out of 5 or so options, and watch the story unfold. Not my kind of game.

[OffRoadKing]

"barely interactive", when did you play it?

[AspiringProGenji]

You really have no idea how interactive this game is so please... from what I saw, this game will way more interactive than a Telltale game, which is good. Many of the things you Interactive with will have consequences too

[UCForce]

Previous QD games have a lot of choice to choose.

[yellowgerbil]

30-50 seems the norm for Sony first party games, those terrible games by EA, Activision, etc that cost 100+mil only cost that because of very poor management, often having segmented groups in different countries working on the same game and are just rushing things out instead of planning a route and not having any of the pitfalls that come with rushing (like changing the entire genre to force in microtransations or online).

[fenome]

Those publishers bloated budgets are ridiculous, I guess they have to pay their CEOs multi-million dollar annual salaries somehow...

[kevnb]

It costs less to make a game on a single platform.

[EazyC]

Quite analogous to the movie industry, most megabudget stuff is absolute dirge. They're cash cows not passion projects

[gangsta_red]

30 million is low?

[remixx116]

It's one 3rd what Amy Henning was touting so sorta yeah. It's probably the middle ground for AAA game development.

Hell didn't GTA 5 cost 250 mill to create.

[Thatguy-310]

30 million is low. Have you not seen how much these recent AAA games have cost to make.

[attilayavuzer]

@remixx116

I think that was including marketing...the actual production budget was about half of that iirc.

[gangsta_red]

The problem is thinking 30 million is low.

[thedr904]

@remixx116 137 to make, 128 for marketing. 250 in total.

[yellowgerbil]

if you have 50 employees (coders, artists etc) and they each make 70K a year (some make much more some less depending on if they are grunts or the heads of their departments but for simplicity sake lets round it to 70)
70,000x50=3.5mil a year
4 years x 3.5mil= 14mil
now you got voice actors, music, writers, game testers, and so much more. It is easy to imagine 30 million for a modest scope game. You get into big open worlds and online modes added etc that can easily get it up into the 50s without any sort of waste of resources. Add in a license like Spiderman or Star Wars and that tosses millions more on too.

[UCForce]

Does it matter in the end ? You do understand that there have to be small which is more focus and consistent. Look at Hellblade, the game is independent AAA game and it received well from critics and consumer. I think you should stop thinking way too big and should think something small.

[gangsta_red]

@UCforce

I really wish I knew what you were talking about.

[rainslacker]

It's the low end of AAA budgets. Although there is no specific cost for something to be considered AAA, as it's more a general term. AAA(or other tiers) are generally looked more at from their production values, which more often than not increase as costs increase. however, there is a wall that is hit with a lot of games, where more money doesn't necessarily mean better production quality

Anyhow ,to put it in perspective, if the game sells 2 million in a month, then they'd be looking at about 78 million in net revenues(after removing costs to distribute and retailer cuts). Sony obviously wouldn't have to pay it's own licensing fees and store cuts for digital sales...so their net profits would be higher.

[starchild]

The witcher 3 cost 50 million to make if I remember correctly. That game had a massive amount of content too.

[Snakefist30]

God of war 3 a ps3 game cost 80 million to make!

[Obscure_Observer]

@gangsta_red

"I really wish I knew what you were talking about."

That comment got my head spinning as well! Lmao.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Amazing game for a low budget AAA take notes

[elazz]

It's quite a reasonable budget indeed. Looking at Sony their revenue after distribution and retailer cut would be around 70% since they own the studio and are publishing. With a million copies at an average price of 60 dollars and probably another million at an average price of 40 dollars and another million discounted far below, perhaps even 20. The total revenue could be around 120m dollars if it sells 3m copies which I believe factoring in digital sales it will. Calculating another 10 - 20m for marketing and the profits for this game would be around 35m

Final profit could be more if the average price is higher due to special editions or if it sells more copies but I think it will be successful

[madforaday]

I thought marketing is part of that budget? I also remember hearing an interview during last generation about how marketing can be super expensive. That could have been just Halo, I remember someone talking about how expensive the marketing was for one Halo game.

[RememberThe357]

Sony doesn't own QD.

[PLAYWATCH76]

@ RememberThe357 - it's a 2nd party studio which means it essentially functions as a 1st party studio except Sony doesn't own the studio. Sony funds the development and owns the intellectual property.

[RememberThe357]

@play: We don't necessarily know how Sony is funding the games QD makes. So whether Sony owns them or not may make a big difference in how the cash flows. 2nd party is not a real thing as Ted Price (Insomniac) has explained, it's more of a way to talk about independent devs that work with the console makers to produce exclusive content. QD being a 3rd party dev means that David Cage is responsible for QD, not Sony. Sony publishing (funding) QD games does make them 2nd party in concept but does not mean Sony controls them as a company, and in reference to elazzs comment it's ambiguous how QD is actually getting their money. Lump sums? Pay per copy? Who knows?

[RetroGamR]

So if the game "fails" should they have spent 50 or 20 million? We don't know if its amazing....just like any other "hype" triple A game...what notes devs are taking and now saying is its to expensive and people don't always buy single story driven games.. they have the right to say that. We don't see all numbers or what it takes. Nor the talent available to make one.

[Jinger]

Well, lets reserve the comment "amazing game" until we actually play it... David Cages last game sucked ass. The rest of what you said is true tho I guess.

[UCForce]

Well, you can say Beyond Two Souls. But his previous games like Heavy Rain have a lot of positive reviews. Detroit Become Human will be like Heavy Rain.

[Jinger]

@UCForce

Doubt it, but I guess it's good to stay positive

[yellowgerbil]

Quantic break can suck it. Single player games are TOO expensive, well Detroit looks a million times better than your game and cost less. It should easily pass the 1.5 million lifetime it would need to be profitable

[Jinger]

QB is also way more of a game than Detroit is sooo of course its going to be less expensive than QB...

[UCForce]

But the problem with Quantum Break, they changed too much. I can’t understand why they changed actor from original Quantum Break demo.

[Jinger]

@UCForce

He was a place holder until they finished finding their actor. That's literally the only thing that changed, calm down.

[Lamboomington]

" well Detroit looks a million times better than your game and cost less."

Don't be silly please. The two are very different types of games.

[yellowgerbil]

I was talking about quality, comparisons of quality are limited to "apples and apples" I can compare the quality of Coca Cola to that of a bowl full of urine even though they are 2 different drinks

[bluefox755]

By today's standards, that's not really that high. All the more impressive what they've managed to do with it.

[Brian7655492]

It's good to see they can still make quality games with reasonable budgets. This is 30 million Euro mind you and likely not taking marketing into account, but still not high like some other bloated budgets.

[Thatguy-310]

This is why Quantic Dream have survived with their play style. Their games aren't big budget and they seem to sell enough to gain profit. This will no doubt make back its money in a quick amount of time. I think it's time for them to join the PlayStation Family. I'm sure they'll do so after this game.

[Araragifeels]

David Cage in interview said that the Quantic Dream is open to be bought by PlayStation. I believe PlayStation is watching for now since they bought NaughtyDog right after their four game or bought Media Molecules because LBP was very successful.

[neutralgamer1992]

so let's see on average AAA games cost 40-60 million yet we are told development costs have risen. Now hear me out as i have said this before all the publishers complaining that SOP games don't make money and they need MT/loot
boxes just ask them one simple question

how much did it cost you to make your game? the reason i say this is because publisher spend way too much on marketing and than complain about development costs going up. GTA5's development cost was about 100 million yet total cost was $256 million. R* have spent millions on RDR2 trailers already

i bet you one thing battlefront 2 didn't cost EA 60-100 million to develop. At most it was between 30-40 million meaning EA already made that money back but than advertisement might have brought the cost to 100-150 million

The reason sony/nintendo/ms can make exclusives which may sell 3-5 million and make profit is because they don't have to pay console makers their fee, the developers are on payroll all year around so less in bonuses and overall whatever they make digitally goes directly to them

in year 2018

yakuza 6(sony pays part of localizing fee)
god of war
days gone
spiderman
detriot
mlb the show

all these games combined sony might spend between 150-200 million yet one 3rd party multi platform game from a AAA developer might cost more than all those combined

so instead of us the gamers getting blamed for not buying the games how about you manage your budgets better. Have you all forgotten when square enix said reboot for TR selling over 7 million wasn't enough to turn a profit.

retailers get $10 dollars on newly released game
platform holders get $10
developer get $10 of each copy sold(unless they are owned by publisher than something different)

let's say square spent $50 million on advertisement

so let's say 5 million copies were bought at full price 300 million

2 million copies were bought at half meaning 60 million

1.5 million copies were bought at $15 meaning 22.5 million

85 million went to retailers
85 million went to console makers
85 million went to developers
50 million on advertisement

total spent $305 million . Let's say $325

game made $382.5 million meaning a profit of 57.5 million. I gave everyone 10 dollar per copy sold but it doesn't work like that for example if the game sells at $30 dollars than retailers get $5 instead of 10 but for sake of teh argument i gave them for $10 each yet still the game made 57.5 million in profits

now compare that to rise of the tomb raider and it didn't even sell half as much

i am sorry about the long post. My conclusion is publishers should look in house to manage their budgets better instead of saying stuff like we need MT and loot boxes to make profits. online games are the cheapest to develop so they spend 30 million than send MT and loot boxes and make hundreds of millions look at overwatch and gta online to be prime examples

[WelkinCole]

Spot on

[OpenGL]

I wish Sony would stop funding these projects, Until Dawn was a better demonstration of the interactive movie as a game because it was self-aware. Maybe this one will surprise me but I was unimpressed by Cage's previous offerings.

[yellowgerbil]

the great thing about Sony is they fund tons of diverse games, this one doesn't appeal to you great, you still got GOW and Spiderman and Days Gone and Dreams all coming this year.

[P_Bomb]

This. It’s been 4 1/2 years since Quantic Dream’s last game, closer to 5 years by the time Detroit actually comes out. How do you produce less product than that?

Meanwhile, Telltale Games auto pilots up a new season or episode of something every other month and no one bats an eyelid. gtfo

[WelkinCole]

Fair enough. I on the other hand have really like what he has done sofar.

[Mr-Dude]

@opengl

I like that Sony is diverse in their games. We can choose from a big genre instead of a limited one. I may be in the majority, but I like QD games, even Beyond which was their weakest one.

I wish Activision stopped funding their crappy COD or EA their FIFA, it isn't really anything new anymore only a reskinned FPS/ sport game every year. But who am I to tell that? Those games are pure greed.

But too each their own you know..

[rainslacker]

I like Quantic Dream games. I'm happy Sony is funding them, because I've had a good time with their games. I like different ones' to different degrees, but I'd say I got my money's worth out of all of the.

I do think Until Dawn was a better game, but I feel QD games are worth a play through.

[gangsta_red]

30 million?? Good lord, this what the other articles from Henning and Remedy were discussing. It just seems like way too much to spend just to develop a game nowadays.

[Eonjay]

Thirty Millions is nothing for a AAA. GTA cost $250 million to make before online even cam into the picture. 30 million is next to nothing because you only have to sell 500k copies to break even. This game is assured profit for QD. If they sell 1 million copies they make back the 30 million plus they add another 30 million to that.

[gangsta_red]

30 million is still a lot and I don't even know if that will include marketing and other costs besides development. Saying 30 million is nothing I believe is part of the problem, it's way too much money to be spending on games.

And the budget has gone up from QD's last game which only leads to Remedy's point of games costing more and more.

And there's no guarantee this game will even be good or successful in enough time to make back it's profit.

[Jinger]

They would only have to sell 500k copies if they somehow made 100% of game sales profit... You're looking at more like 1-1.5mil copies to regain that 30mil. This also doesn't include the marketing and distribution costs etc.

[Mr-Dude]

@gangsta

You know what is a lot? That money what is spend on Star Citizen...

But nobody talks about that.

[gangsta_red]

"But nobody talks about that."

I am positive people do, it's just it has become a running gag now.

http://n4g.com/channel/star...

Star Citizen is beyond ridiculous and is just another example of true excess.

[TheColbertinator]

@gangsta red

Its Sony's money,not yours red.

Just watch,people wont buy it. No worries.

[UCForce]

I still remember you want Sony to be kick out of competition. You are really not helping.

[UCForce]

You and @Jinger think way too big for your own good. Like really ?

[gangsta_red]

"You and @Jinger think way too big for your own good. Like really ?"

Like really... what are you talking about!? What do you even mean 'your own good?

The costs of developing games are extremely high and just hard to believe that these costs are only going to increase over time. It's amazing that we are still able to get games at 60 even with these development costs going from 30 mill and above.

These are the issues that recently came up with Henning and from the Remedy article both stated the concern for the rising costs of games with each development.

Now what does thinking way too big for my own good have anything to do with anything?

[rainslacker]

GTA cost about 250 million to make. Yet it returned around 700 million before they ever released the MP segments.

30 million is pretty cheap for a AAA production. It's the low end actually. Generally, at 30 million, a game has to sell about 750K at full release price to break even. Consider that not all regions are $60 like the US, and other areas of the world actually make more money per copy than you see in the US. General gross profit for any game at $60 is around $32 per copy, with it being a 2-3 dollars more from the EU or Japan. Other countries actually return a higher profit per copy.

30 million was fine for last gen when games were $60 each, and the average cost last gen was actually about $50 million.

If you're trying to imply that 30 million is too much, thus justification for all these devs and pubs acting like costs have increased substantially, then you simply don't have the right frame of references. Think about how we heard this all last gen, compared to how often we actually heard concrete numbers.

The thing about AAA production is that once a game sells enough to break even, it becomes almost all profit....outside distribution and licensing costs. It's a constant increase, not just a flat number that just can't be achieved. Once the initial return happens, that's when games actually become profitable, and it doesn't take as many copies sold as any given COD game to make a return on a 50 million dollar investment.

The reason we keep hearing that these games are too expensive is that publishers want to maximize profit, as a successful MP game, or a SP game with copious MT that sell well, simply makes them more money. There is no problem with the actual costs of AAA games(outside poor project planning), it's purely about the companies wanting to make more money with less investment. Understandable for a business, but they want to sh*t all over SP gaming in the process in a vain attempt to not appear like greedy a**holes.

[gangsta_red]

"Think about how we heard this all last gen, compared to how often we actually heard concrete numbers."

You also have to consider all the games last gen that failed and those companies closing or experiencing massive lay offs because they spent this amount of money. 30 million is not low even if you compare it to another triple A game which I am not doing. This is a reason why companies are putting out sequel after sequel or copying another more successful game because the money spent developing has gone up way too high to take major chances.

Compare all the games we used to get last gen and even the gen before especially. Compare that to now. A lot of these companies that are still around out put has slowed down considerably due to production time and more importantly cost.

The costs for development and production are steadily rising and to be honest the games (besides looks) are not doing anything different, the open worlds are bigger sure but the design and gameplay remains the same. It seems like a good portion is being dumped into looks and marketing.

"but they want to sh*t all over SP gaming in the process in a vain attempt to not appear like greedy a**holes"

I disagree, spending 5 years on a game with upwards cost of 50+ million with no guarantee it will sell or be successful is one reason why a lot of companies are hesitant on SP only games. Not all companies have a mega billion dollar standing from Sony, MS or Nintendo. And even they aren't immune to games failing and that team being dissolved or that IP never returning.

Has nothing to do with being greedy a**holes imo, it has to do with being logical when throwing that many millions into an investment over a course of years.

[rainslacker]

I'm not saying $30 million is a small sum, I'm saying it's relatively low in comparison to AAA budgets. The average budget for a AAA game nowadays is between 30-60 million. It's been like this since the beginning of last gen. Last gen though, there were actually more games which had extremely bloated budgets due to poor management or planning or just the thought that if you throw more money at something, it'll be better. A great example is one of the AC game(4 I believe). It had an internal team of 200 people, and still outsourced a lot of work. That is bloated and was completely uneccesary.

Some publishers get it right on budgets, others don't, but if a game's budget is within it's scope and the expectations for it's actual sales are kept in check, then $30 million is perfectly reasonable for a quality production.

I do agree with your assertion on sequalitis. FFXIII being a great example. Reusing assets to build a new game within an already successful franchise is a good way to go to make extra money on the franchise. I don't even have a problem with it if it's its own project, and not just content stripped out to sell as DLC....Like the Promethian ME3 stuff. But I will point out that FFXIII had part of it's budget to create an engine which didn't get used that much for Square.

I see us getting plenty of these kinds of games this gen, just less high profile ones....like say Mass Effect or Bioshock. But this begs the question, was the issue with SP games not selling as well because of the over-saturation of the market? I mean, even in the PS2 days, the market became oversaturated, but with the sheer number of active users on the system, and the actual lower budgets of the time, it could still sustain the market for a majority of the games that released. Obviously with the higher budgets, there is less room for a failure, but that doesn't mean the games themselves are unprofitable.

The thing about the closures though is that publishers themselves are seeing less and less incentive to actually invest in these games. Many have made their desires known, where they want to make more with fewer expenditures. That's a perfectly valid thing for business to want, but it isn't necessarily what a lot of consumers want. Think about the example of Irrational games. The Bioshock series sold great for the generation. But still got closed down. No reason to not make another Bioshock game, since it'd likely sell well. So the closure of studios isn't always about profits, rather about faith in investment.

[rainslacker]

I will reassert that the cost of production isn't actually steadily rising...at least not beyond typical inflation rates. The average AAA game costs about the same to make as it did last gen. It's important to highlight the term "average", because that's the only way this can really be looked at. Using anecdotal examples isn't going to make this conversation easy, because we can both go either way to paint examples of why we're right.

I do agree that there isn't a huge change in game design today, but the increase in graphics quality has actually made games cheaper to make. These higher quality assets are actually what is started out with, then they're downgraded to meet the hardware restrictions. It's been like this since the PS2....which is why a lot of remasters from that gen are easy to make...because the art already exists. Its no different now, but with the more powerful hardware, less work has to go into optimizing the assets, or the graphics engine to actually get them to look good. On top of that, outsourcing a lot of work is huge nowadays,, and there are tons of Chinese and Korean studios which can do work for substantially less than it cost last gen to do the same thing in house.

Sorry, but the current talk from publishers is about being greedy. They know they can make a profit on AAA games. We all know it. The fact any get made means there is a market and a profit. It's just that they want to make more profit, which is possible through MP and MT.

[DillyDilly]

An expensive Telltale game

[Eonjay]

Its like a AAA Telltale game on steroids with ace motion capture and real branching storylines. Something like a 2000 page script! with unlock-able branches that extend the replay value even further. I think this game will require at least 2 full play throughs. to get the most bang for your purchase because you are going to miss entire directions and outcomes.

[Jinger]

Isn't that what Cage says about all his games? And none have been like that...

[trooper_]

Oh look, that's your...OPINION!

[SharnOfTheDEAD]

That's 10 million less that Mass Effect Andromeda right?

[MasterCornholio]

And for 10 million more your face can be tired.

:P

[RetroGamR]

So if the game "fails" should they have spent 50 or 20 million? If its successful could they have spent less? I felt most impacted by "indie" games this gen so far (Inside, little nightmares, Ori) We don't know if Detroit is amazing..it may look amazing though..just like any other "hype" triple A game...what notes devs are taking from this and now saying is its to expensive and people don't always buy single story driven games.. they have the right to say that. We don't see all numbers or what it takes. Nor the talent available to make one.

[TheOttomatic91]

👏

[bigmalky]

Sony exclusive: 30 million development cost.

EA/Activision game: 30 million development cost, 70 million marketing, hiring guys in suits to brainstorm/develop monetisation tactics, upper staff 'expenses' and paying off journos for higher scores and to advertise to the eyeballs.

[OffRoadKing]

That's surprisingly pretty low.

[aco]

I think the problem is not the budget of the game but it is more about how much money they are going to spend on advertising... sometime the budget for advertising is bigger than the budget of the game...

[Trez1234]

Exactly.

[Profchaos]

Sounds like a pretty small budget for a massive AAA title when compared to other releases I mean GTA 4 released 10 years ago and cost 100 mil

[Tobse]

Seems a bit low honestly. They have as of 2016 around 185 employees that are working for 4,5-5 years on the project. Doing the math on 4.5 years it would be around a 3000$ pay per month per employee without spending a penny on anything else. Going by their last Releases the game will sell around 1-3 Million copies. Say they sell 2 Million at 60$ each it would be with the 15% psn store tax at 76Million $. Those numbers are highly unlikely since stores take a higher % etc.

Are they in trouble if this game isnt a hit?

I just hope they have a remastered Collection of all theire games Ready on June 3. For their 20th birthday

[RadicalCannibal]

That’s 29,999,999 more money than it’s worth

[FITSniper]

Well $30M Euros is $36.7M roughly. Either way, pretty low. Engineers aren't cheap. Especially in Europe where taxes are out the butt.

Also note that Heavy Rain was $21M. But when the game is just a series of choices and scripted events based on the choices you make, that lowers the amount of work required considerably. The player has very little freedom to break the game in that system.

[Father__Merrin]

QD should get this on Steam asap in 4k 60fps

[Mr-Dude]

I think it would do very well on steam. PC players (the one I know) love these games.

I mean, they did make a petition back in 2010 for Heavy Rain to come to PC.
But all their games are Sony IP's so.. Maybe someday trough PS Now.

[Traingamez]

that's 27 million for marketing, 2 million for the execs and $17 an hour for all the people who work on it lol 18 hours a day