Stripper13
Member
a project is created at $x estimates. In most all cases (unless MS/Sony is publishing from the start) the project is started before it becomes exclusive. When the project is budgeted, it's budgeted based on budgets for the dev company. These companies REALLY do often operate fairly independently. The company I work for (and almost all holding companies) work in the exact same way. A cash infusion into the holding company practically NEVER means trickling down to the subsidiaries. We still have to operate under OUR budget. It might affect our company performance bonus or next year's budget... but yeah... our parent company making a ton of extra money doesn't have any immediate or medium term impact on us.
time investment I disagree. Development time is trivial, testing time is increased non-linear, and "legal" time is typically non-existent as it falls under publisher-wide agreements. Money is pointless, as because development costs are marginal, the only thing left is licensing which comes off the actual copies published (i.e. essentially off the top)
The doesn't matter though. My whole point is the money all comes from 'outside' the developers office. Cash infusion, massive success with big revenue, an insurance pay out. It's all funds that the publisher utilises to pay bills - including running a development team.
As for your break down of the development budget... It's questionable. Development and marketing costs are in the 10s of millions - it's obvious that dropping a platform and saving the development resources, marketing, overheads and royalties/licensing fees for one console would translate to significant savings - provided the title wasn't already complete and pulled last minute.