The WiiU port vs. Nintendo Switch version

unless its patents, cause faking a patents way more difficult than faking a blog post or a tweet (or a rumor)

No, the current plan is Wii U, not NS.

Except we all knew Unity-based games ran like shit on WiiU. Playtonic was going to try their darnest to run YL on WiiU and its evident they couldn't. Add to that the looming release of the Switch and the pretty much dead WiiU and you got a recipe for a developer not trying hard enough to overcome those headaches.


I have no doubt YL will run perfectly on Switch but writing was on the wall they were going to get into trouble when they announced it for WiiU while using the Unity engine.

Dully noted. Edited my post. 

I tried to put both quotes and my responses to them on the same post but doing so from mobile is very tricky.

It's even lower when you take into account taxes, platform royalties, Kickstarter fees, backer rewards, etc. of those 5.5 million they end up close to 60% of it for development of the game itself.

It is true this Kickstarter served to show that there was a demand but that was only part of the reason. A publisher was always going to contribute more but you're craaaazy if you think BS will cost 30-50 million to develop. CRAZY! Thats the budget of a AAA game in the range of something like Uncharted 2! And, allow me to be blunt, but Bloodstained is not a AAA title. I have as much faith and passion for this project as anyone else here but BS is neither a big budget title nor it should be. For Igarashi this game is, by far, his biggest budget he's ever worked with (especially for a 2D Igavania) but it won't get near to a 30 million budget. 

Here's what we do know: when the Kickstarter was announced and they were asking for $500,000 to fund Bloodstained they said an undisclosed publisher was willing to part with 90% of the game's budget if backers could provide the other 10% (aka those 500 grand). Going with that it means that the initial Bloodstained pitch, without stretch goals, was going to be close to $5,000,000 (500,000 from backer, 4,500,000 from the publisher). If you add to those $4.5 million from the publisher the $5.75 million they got from Kickstarter and Paypal backers it barely scratches the $10 million budget. A very respectable budget but a very shy one from what a AAA title needs nowadays. Especially after you take away everything that comes with a crowdfunding campaign that chips into the backer money.

TL;DR Bloodstained will not have, nor should it need, a triple-A $30-50 million budget. Not even close.

 Perhaps that number was too high. Still $10 million to $20 million is a lot of money and my point stands. I still think the game costs a lot more to develop than people believe. It being 2.5D doesn't magically make it cheap to develop. Porting to a console that on its way out of the market might just cost money that isn't recouped. If the game doesn't make enough profit then theres not going to be a sequel and we get only one game rather than a new franchise.

Also, triple AAA games can have budgets upward of 200+ million (with advertising added in).

Edit: uncharted 2 cost 20 million and that was without having to develop a new engine since they used the one for Uncharted 1. Bloodstained is going to have to develop all its assets since it has no previous game to borrow from. Thats going to make the cost go up. So again, probably 30-50 million is too much but 20 million might not be as crazy as it sounds.

Also, keep in mind that the initial kickstarter goal was a very vague best guess. Theres no really way to tell how much or how long a game will take to make until you start making assets and measuring how long they take to finish. Futhermore, the intal goal was the price point before any stretch goals were met. Now that the game is being ported to multiple platforms the cost of development would have gone up. It not cheap to develop for multiple platforms.
 

Even if its $10 million at most, the game has to sell much more than that to be successful. Hence the rest of my point still stands. I don't expect this game to have sky high sells and I don't think the game can afford to port to a console that is not going to give an appropriate return on investment.

Edit: forget the number, I'm just using a vague guess as an example. Clearly, I don't know how much games cost to make.

Whatever the cost of the game, I don't expect this game to have more sells than previous Castlevania games and that means tough decisions need to be made. Such as if the Devs can really afford to port to a console that might not provide a profitable return on investment. 

My point being, if the Devs believe it will be hurt them to stick to the Wii-U then they should move to the Switch and refund any backer that finds that unacceptable.

Seems I missed the party, huh?


Not really sure what I'm generalizing here? A single site? A trend?


Ignoring the fact that you completely missed the point of the post, care to tell me where exactly I said that YL runs well on the Wii U?

This, tbh.

I guess it all depends on just how much budget has gone to the port already as if the switch to the... well, SWITCH, can be supported by said budget. Maybe whatever build they (maybe) have for the Wii U version is actually not compatible with the Switch? Maybe it is and the jump/transition would not make a dent on the budget?