Disney says Indiana Jones Xbox exclusivity deal ‘made financial and strategic sense' and leaving out PlayStation didn’t feel “overly exclusionary”
- Thread starter John Elden Ring
- Start date
Him leaving is not a big deal. That's your opinion. Again, he's not actual talent. He's a drunk pr bastard.
I'm talking about the videogame space. Not the movie space. They definitely wore that shit out!
I am well aware of that old canard, but you can say the same for big game releases.Movies never include their respective marketing budgets, as well as other hidden costs. Even if that list includes some marketing costs, others are missing.
Rule of thumb is that a movies true budget is around 2 times the listed budget, and then they need around 2.5 times of the listed budget to turn a profit. These are rough guidelines of course.
Hollywood accounting - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Some more info:
Breaking Down Fast X's $704M Box Office - Was It A Success Or A Flop?
The success or failure of Fast X is complicated.screenrant.com
Last edited:
No.10 in terms of sales in the US, it currently has 11,000 players on Steam, and no serious outlets have it as their game of the year.
It has massively underperformed, especially when you consider the likely development costs, and the amount of hype it had.
We really can't say without knowing the budget. If the game cost $300M to make with a comparable marketing budget, it very possibly bombed.
A lot of shit Disney has done over the last five years probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Last edited:
Are you denying that every year's biggest games don't have huge marketing budgets? I see at least one (Ubisoft) Avatar ad a day and have been for weeks now.
Why is it that your only arguments are fallacys? I did not say that the biggest games don't have huge marketing budgets. I did say that they are not nearly as big as the biggest movies. Stop moving the goalpost once proven wrong.
Thats better than your argument which was just a fucking lie, with you say the biggest movies cost nearly 300 million dollars more than what it actually cost for the single most expensive film of all time. If anything I am being nice to you and not counting Star Citizen (which is as much a cult and/or scam as it is an in development game) as the actual most expensive game.
Ehhhhhhhh I don't see any quantitative analysis showing that assertion to be true though?
Incorrect. The budgets listed for movies in Wikipedia are mostly production budgets, which do not include Marketing. Marketing usually adds anything between 0.5x to 1.5x the production budget for a movie. This is well known in the industry, there's no debate.
When you look at the top 10 highest grossing movies of 2023, you get the following:
| Production Budget | Marketing 0.5x | Total | Marketing 1x | Total | |
| Barbie | 145 | 72,5 | 217,5 | 145 | 290 |
| The Super Mario Bros. Movie | 100 | 50 | 150 | 100 | 200 |
| Oppenheimer † | 100 | 50 | 150 | 100 | 200 |
| Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | 250 | 125 | 375 | 250 | 500 |
| Fast X | 340 | 170 | 510 | 340 | 680 |
| Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse | 100 | 50 | 150 | 100 | 200 |
| The Little Mermaid | 297 | 148,5 | 445,5 | 297 | 594 |
| Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One | 291 | 145,5 | 436,5 | 291 | 582 |
| Average | 304,3125 | 405,75 |
Note that I have removed Full River Red and The Wandering Earth 2 due to them not being "Hollywood" productions, and thus their math being likely different. Additionally, I couldn't quickly find TWE2 budget information.
I'm not even accounting for marketing potentially reaching 1.5X, so best case you have an average budget of 304M, and a "more realistic" 405M.
Another hidden cost of Hollywood movies is the percentage of revenue (gross or net) that many actors get, which adds up to the cost, hence the full average of around 2.5X the production budget for the whole movie (on average). With all of that said and accounting for an average of 2.5X, the cost rises to 507M on average.
See, this is the problem with your whole charade. You keep moving the goalpost, and now suddenly decide that an exception is somehow the rule. You can't also compare live service games with regular AAA games (due to the constant needs for updates and new content) since movies are not live service offerings. But we have some data from the CMA.
So that's 200M done and dusted, about half my numbers above (1x)
This one could be as much as 660M, or about 1.65x of my numbers above (1x)
No need to math this one since in both figures it's lower than the movie averages.
Same for this one with one exception that surpassed 1.2B (and that's more than likely a live service game).
We know how much HFW and TLOU2 cost:
And we can extrapolate based on some of the numbers above that marketing costs don't usually surpass 1x, meaning they would be around the 400M worst case, but more likely close to 300M.
TLDR:
- Big Hollywood movies are generally more expensive than AAA SP games, with quite a few of them being way more expensive than games (TFA 500M+ budget was production only, for example)
- Live Service AAA games are generally equally or more expensive than Hollywood movies (I did not account for this, so take the W)
- Marketing budgets are generally lower in games