Hopefully they spent it on making the game good.

It's still not going to be as fun as Doom.

Honestly, whenever this much money gets dumped into something I feel wary, kinda like when a game is delayed time and time again. No game has ever been made or will ever be made that can justify that kind of budget. This seems like the kind of insane over-production that kills a company.

Wow..and they can't even make a good gameplay video out of the budget.

They could've sold me a copy if they decided to put it out on PC.

I think the gambit here is to establish the IP at any cost and eat some of the cost up front and turn it into a profitable franchise down the road. Let's be honest. CoD can't last forever. Activision knows this. They want to prep the next sacrificial cash cow for slaughtering NOW so when it is time to put CoD out of its misery they have another franchise to latch on to.

Big budget sci-fi games!!

Going to be super interesting how many risks they take with the gameplay & characters with that kind of Big Money on the line.

Well, Fuck.

Hope it's worth it.

If you understood how huge a studio Bungie was, it might make a little more sense to you. The amount of growth that studio has seen since it hit the public eye is insane. I've been to their old studio back in the Halo 3 days and that was pretty big. Wasn't long after I went there that they ended up expanding to second location. There are a lot of very talented dudes working there, so I don't think it's that much of a shame. That money means a lot of people get paychecks.

And I'm guessing most of you folks haven't payed a ton of attention to things like the Bungie podcast or more behind the scenes information on what they are aiming for with this game. They are building this game to last a very long time, to be very well supported, and to keep people coming back for more. And they have very smart people working on insuring that happens. They dedicated a large chunk of one of the recent episodes of their podcast to talking about just that. If Destiny is successful at what it's trying to do (which we have pretty solid reasons to expect it will) then this will not end up being all that much in the grand scheme of things.

You know, when you so openly wear your prejudices it's hard for people to take you seriously.

The game isn't all that much like Borderlands. Yes, it has loot, and yes it's semi-open, but the gameplay and structure isn't as similar as people have been touting. You should read fewer IGN previews that just throw buzzwords around and use other franchises as analogues for pretty much everything, because I suspect you've been convinced of something that isn't all that true. Sharing a few basic premises from the rest of the industry a clone does not make. It's like when everyone called every fucking shooter with a cover system a Gears of War clone, even if it shared little else in common.

And no, Borderlands is not a mini-MMO. It might be a single player MMO, but not a mini-MMO. It doesn't have the seamless online interaction, it doesn't have a well developed PvP aspect, it doesn't have a lot of the very cool things that Destiny is promising. Other than the quest system, Borderlands is just an arcadey coop shooter. Destiny is taking way more from the MMO space than most are even aware (again, listen to the Bungie podcast, they have some interesting Destiny talks).

@believer258 said:

The hilarious thing is that No Man's Sky looks to be revolutionary (even if it's just a proof of concept at this stage with no promises made one way or the other) and it's being made by a small indie team with little funding. Yet Bungie is apparently a Super Studio as someone pointed out already and they need half a billion dollars to justify their Dark Souls/Borderlands mashup.

It's fucking insane, really.

Prejudice? What prejudice? I compared it to Borderlands and Dark Souls because that's what it most resembles. Borderlands and Dark Souls. There's nothing wrong with being like either of those games (as they're both quite good). Why do you assume that because someone uses analogous examples that it means they're being dismissive of the game in question?

My whole thing is utter disbelief that this game is costing that much. If anything it proves how gross over-spending on marketing is not just in games, but in this culture as a whole. You can't tell me with a straight face that half a billion dollars is indeed necessary for a fucking video game. Not only that, but a video game that isn't creating anything altogether new. You can't tell me that most of the dev cost has been sunk into R&D and gameplay prototypes because at the end of the day it's a shooter. A shooter that builds on the foundations of games like Borderlands. You can deny the similarity all you want, that's your prerogative, but don't tell me that all that cash is a necessary expenditure for what will ultimately be an mmo-lite shooter.

I get you like Bungie. I get that you're excited for Destiny. It's probably going to be a good game, but for the love of god, check your prejudice, bro.

@oldirtybearon: If Destiny is just Borderlands with Dark Souls, then No Mans Sky is just Proteus and Elite. See. Nothing is revolutionary if you compare it to the sum of its parts.

good luck activision, bungie eh they are already getting paid.

When they are building a game that they want to last far, far longer than most games (think MMO live times) then the money spent on getting it out the door makes a lot more sense.

And I trust Bungie to put that money to good use (whatever amount of that total they actually got) because they have historically tight fisted leadership.

And don't say you weren't being dismissive of the game. Most of your comments have been clearly writing the game off as a Borderlands spoof.

I'm speaking more from a perspective of being informed about the game, not someone who likes Bungie. I do like Bungie, don't get me wrong, but I'm not afraid to critique them when they make mistakes or whatever. Knowing what I know, this doesn't seem nearly as crazy as people say, because I know what the game should be compared to, and Borderlands is NOT the game. What you see may resemble Borderlands, but it's been made clear that the actual experience won't be all that similar at all. Again, just because you see loot shooter, you shouldn't assume the game is just a remix on what Borderlands did. Lots of games have had loot in the past. Some shooters even. Other than the loot, I don't see much of a comparison between the two at all. The structure, gameplay, multiplayer, connectivity, intention, and philosophy of the title seems pretty different to me. So the idea that one mechanic is enough to make it a mashup of some random game with that mechanic is a bit silly to me. Especially considering how long the idea for Destiny has existed (ie, since before Borderlands was announced).

I can't help but get the feeling that you have a surface level perspective and you don't really spend a lot of time diving deeper into the industry. That's fine, but it also means you have a limited understanding of most of the elements to this story. The fact that this game has been running around Bungie since before any of the games you seem to think it's pulling from is a great example. New IPs are rarely all that new. They usually take a lot of developing until they get to the point where they can be developed and have resources dedicated to them. Destiny is no different, Bungie has said as much. And I think that reducing it to a mashup of two games is pretty ignorant (which is fine, as long as you know and recognize that ignorance) because it's pulling lessons from far more sources than the ones you've listed, especially for the larger picture of the experience they are aiming to deliver.

It's totally fair to say this game could probably be made with less money. But the guys at Bungie aren't wasting that money and the money is there to spend so I fail to see how it's such a shame that the studio is continuing to grow. I also think it's extremely heartening to see someone like Activision putting money into a new IP. That's a crazy move and it might just encourage other publishers and Activision themselves to let their top tier devs spend more time on passion projects and new IPs rather than still more sequels. Showing the industry that you can do new exciting IPs and put real money behind em is a good thing for everyone. It'll make people more enthusiastic about smaller projects, about new riskier IPs, and longer lasting experiences. That all, to me, sounds like a healthy move.

I can somewhat understand reservation about the amount of money. It seems crazy, but I think that is largely because most people just don't have the context they need. It's still a lot of money, but when you consider that this game isn't supposed to be another Call of Duty that is going to be replaced in a year (maybe not even for a couple of years, or ever really) the money they are putting into it makes a little more sense, as it's clearly a play for long term success.

Context is super important, and it's something many, many enthusiast observers are lacking. I strongly encourage you to seek some out instead of making a gut reaction and posting snarky posts about how a game is just another game.

Also, never said the money was necessary. Just that it's not nearly as unreasonable or as unhealthy as people seem to think. This is not likely a case of prolonged, difficult, messy development. It is not an LA Noire situation. That money is going to developing technology, establishing servers, and investing in long term solutions. And a shit ton of marketing/co-marketing.

I look forward to Kotick being crucified when the game only sells Titanfall numbers.

That's million bucks x 500.

Hell yeah.

They're basically pointing a gun at Bungie's head and saying "here you go and don't bother coming back if you fail".

And a failure in this case could very well be a game that is a popular success but with that kind of investment you need to be more than successful. Like how Tomb Raider or Resident Evil 6 were not "successful".

I suppose this time it won't be too long to know if yet another studio will die at the hand of Activision.

That's more than enough money to make a really kickass game, hopefully the game looks it, and is also really good. I haven't really followed the game at all but I'm still pretty interested in how it will turn out.

Where the hell are you getting this from? No game has been $70 and it's been pretty clearly established that game prices are staying $60 this generation. The trends are leaning much more towards DLC and microtransactions than an upfront price increase.

In the US sure...

What's even more hilarious is that every time I see the name "No Man's Sky", I just can't wait for that game to come out. I want to go watch the trailer over and over. If pulled off right, that might be more fun to me than Doom! It's really the flying-from-the-ground-into-space part that most excites me. Also it looks fucking gorgeous. It probably has textures of a lesser quality than Destiny, but I don't care. I want to play No Man's Sky and Persona 5 more than any of these mega-expensive moneysinks.

From what I've seen, you'll be picking up quests and going to shoot dudes and monsters with health bars above their heads while shooting the shit with friends or (preferably) not talking to randoms. Does that mean that there can't be any variance between Destiny and Borderlands? Certainly not! I might be way more excited for No Man's Sky but I'm keeping my eye on Destiny too. But you can't look at what we've seen of Destiny and tell me that it doesn't resemble Borderlands, even if Destiny was conceived before Borderlands. By the way, let's note, Borderlands was first revealed in 2007. According to Wikipedia, the first hints of Destiny were in Halo 3 ODST in 2009.

And when you're using double the budget of one of the most expensive games ever made, then you have wildly overspent on something. Five hundred million dollars for a piece of entertainment that most people are going to play for less than a hundred hours is far too much. Maybe they're going for WoW-like sales and hours spent playing, but WoW is practically a freak of nature and trying to capture an audience like that has proven to be a fool's errand by many massively over-budgeted productions.

I don't dislike Destiny, I think it sounds and looks about as fun as Borderlands sounded and looked. Because it looks a hell of a lot like Borderlands from what I've seen. If it comes out and blows my mind, I'll eat my words.

Did Rockstar ever release PC sales information? I was under the impression that digital sales were not counted in NPD numbers and companies historically don't provide the data...so...

@ll_exile_ll: Destiny on 360 vs Destiny on Xbox One. Nearly every other (in fact probably every other) cross generation game has followed the same pricing structure in my region. Game in the UK have a similar pricing structure where the new generation edition is more expensive and so do Amazon.co.uk and most of their European variants. I haven't found a vendor in Europe which isn't following this structure.

Based on what I have had told to me, again by people who have actually played it, yeah... you will be eating your words. Also the budget being bandied about is like 50% (or more) advertising, not the actual games budget. Also for all I think No Man's Sky looks cool too I have long since learned not to put any faith in low budget indie teams who only have proof of concept videos to show.

@jarmahead Glad someone else on the forum is actually following the game and knows it is more than "just Borderlands".

uh oh

Fair enough, but the comment I replied to was listed in dollars, specifically $60 and $70. If you're talking dollars, cross gen games have been the same price thus far and there is no indication that it will change. Destiny 360, Destiny Xbox One.

@ll_exile_ll: Yeah I'll admit I was unaware that retailers in the US are charging the same for both generations. But either way, I guess it should stand to reason that not all copies are priced at $60 and in the vast majority of Europe a $60 will actually be sold for something closer to $90-$100. Makes me wonder though, whats the reason behind us Europeans paying up to €10 more on our next gen games.

@jesus_phish said:

@oldirtybearon: Well.. As long as its for good ol' Teddy Dibiase' benefit...

The German PC magazine Gamestar had an article about it once in its magazine. I don't know where from their stats have come.

I have my doubts that No Man's Sky will end up costing $500 million. I read his posts not as criticism of the game itself, but rather disbelief that any game could cost that much money.

@shinboy630: Indeed it wont. But I have my doubts that it will have as much polish, as much advertising or as much development put behind it or as much infrastructure after launch. It probably doesn't have a roadmap as large either. I doubt the guys behind it are preemptively thinking about NMS 2 and 3. Does Destiny need this much money. Probably not. But Activision (remember, they're footing the bill here, not Bungie as some people are mistaken in thinking) are putting their investment into this for the long term goal. Just like Sony took a loss on the PS3 for a good while to get the thing into homes.

My point anyway is that pointing at Destiny and saying "its just borderlands and dark souls" but then praising No Mans Sky for being revolutionary can be reversed by just pointing out, as I have, that NMS is just Proteus and Elite.

over 500,000,000 to make, yet not enough to keep Martin O'Donnell

From what I've seen of the game, there's nothing there that justifies all that money (opinion). I'm sure its gonna sell bundles of copies, just based on the fact it's made by bungie, looks like Halo, and is published by the promotional machine known as Activision, but not GTA V or Call of Duty numbers, not by a long shot. If I were one of the guys in charge of budget, it would be a fraction of that. Banking too much money on a new IP is never a good idea, I can't think of any new IPs that ran away with success instantly, not even the first halo was very successful at first.

$495 million of it went to marty o'donnell

Just pulling some information from Statisticbrain.com. As of 12.19.13, Skyrim has sold 20.2 million copies across all platforms. The PC, according to that site accounts for 15% of those sales. We'll just do quick, dirty math and say the PC sold 3 million copies. As a comparison, the PS3 had 27% of platform sales at 5.4 million.

Ars scraped Steam data and pulled out 5.9million as the number of Steam users who own Skyrim. So, the number of people who own Skyrim is higher than on the PS3.

Just food for thought. You can't take PC sales information too seriously, as Steam does not release sales numbers. It's like trying to base console game sales without numbers from Walmart, Gamestop, and Amazon.

Skyrim. Big game that did real well on PC. Still doing well on PC actually.

@jarmahead: I listen to the Bungie Podcast regulary. These are funny and informative podcasts. Really nice and entertaining chaps over there at Bungie. You can hear and feel the passion these guys have for gaming and i really love that. BUT - STILL, gaming budgets are getting out of hand these days and if the suits drop this amount of money on your studio it also means that you are giving up A LOT of freedom as a dev. I am not here to judge that, nor am i in the position to do so but i do believe that more money doesn´t mean better games, doesn´t mean better jobs either. Look how unstable the jobs in this biz really are. Money also, over time, almost always kills innovation, the spirit of it. It paves the way for the mainstream, shapes a consensus, waters everything down until it becomes boring and uninspired. 500 Millon Dollars on a game is just disgusting imo. No matter who dropped it on who.