Ya, but like he said, that is only if you assume the budgets were the same without multiplayer. I'd argue that isnt the case, since multiplayer brings in revenue that a SP alone normally doesnt. Opportunity costs vary wildly, it isnt as binary as X, Y, and Z it is more like calculus.
Sure. I was speaking in very general terms, though, mostly in response to rda. Also, I didn't mean to imply that opportunity costs are determined so arbitrarily and without deeper analysis -- just that making any content costs money, opportunities will always be lost when considering mutually exclusive endeavors, and somebody is going to pay that cost. Don't forget the implicit costs associated with such decisions. There's always that next best alternative that is lost, whatever it may be. The MP team could have worked on some other type of revenue-producing content that eventually ended up with a higher ROI when all was said and done. The entire team had to make a variety of choices and sacrifices all throughout development because of finite resources. That was my point, and it certainly doesn't mean that the addition of MP is going to be something that EA/BioWare regrets. Based on ME3 MP's successful implementation, I fully expected its inclusion in DA:I.
The last sentence in the previous post was simply a basic comment on the scarcity of time and resources and a reminder that developers can't add everything including the kitchen sink, not that X, Y, and Z are all used in any specific calculation.
The bottom line, however, remains the same. MP doesn't take money away from SP in the majority of cases.
Retour en haut
