引用:

原帖由 村上春樹 于 2010-2-24 09:33 发表
http://www.digitalbattle.com/201 ... -games-budgets-ever
原文出處

小日本的英文有沒有這麼差勁？跟天師還是FF嬸有得比了。
FF13的開發成本在原文中是AT LEAST 50% higher，上 ...

你连这破榜一起给我洗洗睡

AT LEAST 50% higher？前面还有个Rumored看到没？

这种SB榜就是一完全不懂成本核算的人才会搞出来的东西

为一个游戏投入多少现金就=这个游戏的成本？这SB观念是怎么出来的？

那些为开发游戏增添的固定资产就直接划入成本了？你SE买了那么些个PS3和XO的开发Kit做完FFB就扔了？

联合企划听说过没？FFB和FFVB就是这样的。好比FFB整个制作周期36个月，其中18个月是前期做制作工具的，FFB用这套，FFVB也用这个，这段工期的成本是怎么摊的你明白没？

引用:

原帖由 村上春樹 于 2010-2-24 14:22 发表

:D

你急什麼？我說原文壓根沒提到FFB 36億成本的數字，讚嘆一下小日本的英文閱讀能力，您又搞那套光靠概念得不出實證數字來反駁的老路線？

您又怎麼知道裡面講的投入資金有沒有涵蓋攤提？FFB成本高，未來核 ...

哦，各游戏公司的Product costs和Software development costs and royalties是怎么算的？

请正面回答

引用:

原帖由 村上春樹 于 2010-2-24 16:16 发表


原文連結中的數字可靠性僅供參考，不過我也不清楚閣下何以確知其中的budget不是您眼中並不SB的算法？:D :D

這很關鍵，您如果可以確知原文是用你所謂SB的觀點去算成本的，您在這裡大喊原文SB才有意義吧？

...

哎，一声叹息

2006年Pixar已被Disney收购，给你点之前的数据看看


Pixar Reports Record Results for 2005


EMERYVILLE, CA - (March 7, 2006) Pixar Animation Studios (Nasdaq: PIXR) today reported financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2005. For the year, Pixar earned $152.9 million, or $1.24 per fully diluted share, on revenues of $289.1 million. This compares to earnings of $141.7 million, or $1.19 per fully diluted share, on revenues of $273.5 million for the year ended January 1, 2005.

For the fourth quarter of 2005, Pixar earned $30.9 million, or $0.25 per fully diluted share, on revenues of $55.6 million. This compares to earnings of $55.2 million, or $0.45 per fully diluted share on revenues of $108.9 million, achieved in the fourth quarter of 2004.

"2005 marks Pixar's tenth year as a public company and, I'm pleased to report, our most profitable year ever," said Pixar CEO Steve Jobs. "With the proposed merger of Pixar and Disney, this will likely be our last report as an independent public company, and I'd like to thank every Pixar shareholder for their support over the past decade in helping us build this amazing company."

Results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, were driven by film revenue of $274.8 million, primarily from The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. This included $151.7 million from The Incredibles, largely from worldwide home video and consumer products licensing, and $58.3 million from Finding Nemo, mainly comprised of worldwide home video, worldwide television and consumer products licensing. The company's library titles contributed approximately 23% of its total film revenues, generating $63.0 million during the year, largely from worldwide home video sales, worldwide television and consumer products licensing. In addition to film revenue, software licensing contributed $14.4 million to full year 2005 revenue.

Results for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2005, were driven by film revenue of $51.9 million, primarily from Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. This included $22.6 million from Finding Nemo, largely from worldwide television licensing and home video, and $10.2 million from The Incredibles, mainly comprised of consumer products revenue and worldwide home video sales. The company's library titles contributed approximately $19.1 million in the quarter, largely from continuing consumer products revenue and worldwide home video sales, including the domestic DVD re-release of Toy Story 2 and the international DVD re-releases of Toy Story and Toy Story 2. In addition to film revenue, software licensing contributed $3.7 million to fourth quarter 2005 revenue.

Cost of revenue was $39.4 million for fiscal year 2005 compared to $29.9 million in 2004, and primarily represents amortization of capitalized film costs. Gross profit margin for fiscal year 2005 was 86% compared to 89% in 2004. The decrease in gross profit margin from 2004 to 2005 is attributable to a higher proportion of revenues from The Incredibles, which had a higher amortization percentage as compared to Finding Nemo in the prior year. For the fourth quarter of 2005, cost of revenue was $4.1 million, representing a gross profit margin of 93%, compared to $13.3 million and 88%, respectively, for the comparable period in 2004. The increase in gross profit margin from the fourth quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005 can be attributable to a higher proportion of revenues from Finding Nemo, which had a lower amortization percentage as compared to The Incredibles and relative to Finding Nemo's amortization rate in the prior year.

Total operating expenses decreased to $34.3 million in fiscal year 2005 from $34.9 million in 2004. For the fourth quarter of 2005, operating expenses decreased to $10.1 million from $11.4 million in the corresponding period last year. For both the full year and the fourth quarter, the decrease in operating expenses over the prior-year was due primarily to a reduction in research and development costs, partially offset by increases in sales and marketing and general and administrative expenses.

Interest and other income was $26.2 million in fiscal year 2005, up from $12.4 million in 2004, and consisted primarily of interest income on investments. For the fourth quarter of 2005, interest and other income was $8.2 million, up from $3.9 million in 2004. The increases in 2005 compared to 2004 were primarily due to higher average cash, cash equivalents, and investment balances earning interest at higher average rates.

The overall effective tax rate for fiscal year 2005 was 36.7%, which was lower than the statutory rate due to a number of factors including the tax benefit associated with certain income earned outside the U.S., a tax deduction related to income attributable to domestic production activities and certain tax-exempt investment income. Cash, cash equivalents, and investments were approximately $1.0 billion at the end of the year, representing an increase of $185.8 million over the company's 2004 year-end balance. This was mainly attributable to cash received from Disney for Pixar's share of film revenues, as well as proceeds from stock option exercises and interest income, offset by film production costs, taxes and capital expenditures.

Capitalized film costs at December 31, 2005 were $182.1 million versus $140.0 million at the end of 2004, reflecting production spending on current film projects, offset by amortization of capitalized film costs of $38.6 million.



再跟你明说了，这SB榜里有几个Title我知道最后成本核算下来大概是什么区间的，你给我少来装了

引用:

原帖由 村上春樹 于 2010-2-24 20:12 发表


您po出這一大段文字是要說明什麼呢？難道你都是從SE綜合財報去反挖一款遊戲的開發預算？你從pixar/disney的季度財報挖Cars的預算給我看看.

我只想問你PIXAR up 1.75億美刀的預算有沒有算入攤提軟件成本、硬件 ...

真受不了

我建议你先找本这几年的CESA白皮书读读，虽然里面的游戏成本核算方式我虽然认为有点低了。

LZ贴出这SB榜里基本所有的数据基本都是从乱七八糟的其他网站里找来的野鸡消息。里面有几个数据我所知的就是投资额，在一个世代的开始的时候，做一个Title光买Dev Kit就得多少钱？PS3的Dev Kit最早得20000多美金/台，XO的Dev Kit也得10000多美金/台，两者开始降价都是2007年里的事情。更加莫名其妙的就是LA　Noire这种还没填完的坑居然可以出成本了。GT5那个所谓预算包含了整个开发计划包括GT HD、GT 5P和GT 5正传，打包在一起算什么了？何况现在GT5开发已经完成了？

至于Pixar，抱歉，我不认识和他相关的人，他们各产品间成本是怎么分割的我不是太清楚，因为Renderman是个商业软件，有独立的收入来源，与之相关的硬件、软件投入成本可以独立核算也可以分摊一部分到自己做的电影项目中，否则必然是直接算到各部电影里。如果让我说估计是采用后者，因为单凭软件的销售费用可能会做成单项亏损。而游戏公司除了EPIC这种就是卖引擎的外，其他或者买UE这种现成的引擎，这算个授权费就可以；或者自己研发的开发工具，自用又不出售，当然是分摊到相关游戏软件的成本里。买入的硬件计入固定资产做直接成本自然是按时间来折旧，只不过折旧率计算方式还有不同而已，这还用我来教？

http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog ... roductions_twitter/

Japanese tweets, like English tweets, are limited to 140 characters. You can still get quite a bit through in those 140 characters, though, as evidenced at the Kojima Productions Twitter today.

Writes Kojima Productions' Kenichiro Imaizumi:

"Recently in the news, it's been written that MGS4's development costs crossed 5 billion [yen], or 7 billion. It didn't cost that much. If it did cost that much, it would have been multiplatform. But, of course, the data can't fit."

The stuff about the development costs appears to be in reference to a report that recently surfaced listing the top ten costliest video games. This report listed MGS4 as the 5th costliest game of all time at $60 million.

So, in one Tweet, we have a denial of the cost report and a denial of any lingering multiplatform rumors. Good job, Imaizumi! You're today's top tweeter. You're much better at tweeting than your boss.


现在知道这SB榜有多扯淡了吧

引用:

原帖由 村上春樹 于 2010-2-24 22:20 发表


所以你口中的sb榜上各遊戲的真實成本多少？你的數據以及資料來源、分析模式？

pixar 有自己的renderman，但你要問問他們用不用現成的工業標準maya、3dsmax？美術人員是用什麼繪圖的？
render farm硬件成本也是要花的，為了up買了若干單位的工作站，研發新的光照算法，有形無形的技術資源是不是也要攤提到top story 3上面？

遊戲尚未完成時，可以由人事作簡單的成本估算。而且這只是基本款，因為人事開銷還不包括軟硬件支出等。

提出cesa怎麼計算遊戲預算救不了閣下，因為這就跟我提up 預算到1.75億美刀一樣，你從數字根本看不出有沒有攤提掉固定成本、納入軟件授權收益等。

這叫做論證模式不明，因而無從反駁。就像你要問阿凡達的兩億多美刀有沒有攤提到柯麥隆研發3D攝影技術的成本、WETA工作室積累的資源？誰知道？

我在前面就指出關鍵點，你怎麼知道原文內容沒涵蓋您所謂「不sb」的成本算法？總得你先知道別人是用你口中的sb的算法算出來，您的高聲吶喊才有意義吧？

说你不懂还真不冤枉你

首先预算和成本是两回事，这种财务上的概念你查查就明白区别在哪里我就不跟你细较真了。

做成本是有相对固定的模式的，而且做游戏开发的成本其实并不是很难的一件事，至多在某些细项上不同公司不同项目上有点出入。概而言之就是人工成本、相关固定资产的折旧、外购软件授权费用、外包服务费用以及相应的差旅费、服务费、房屋租金、水电费用、管理费等间接费用的摊销，如涉及用到其他单位知识产权的还得有一笔费用。当然，最后体现在财报里的基本上都不是开发成本而是Cost of products，这部分还包括第一方的权利金、压盘费、印刷费等等。而象EA这样的平均毛利可以在50%以上，Activision也会在30%以上。

你上文荒唐的论点之一“就像你要問阿凡達的兩億多美刀有沒有攤提到柯麥隆研發3D攝影技術的成本、WETA工作室積累的資源？誰知道？”

你单项核算成本的对象搞明白了没？一部电影最后需要核算成本的就一个制作方，你找WETA外包你的特效部分，OMG，外包服务成本是成本核算里最简单最没争议的成本项目，到最后你付给WETA一笔服务费，这笔费用对制作方来说就=这部分的成本，WETA内部怎么算那是他自己的事。柯麥隆研發3D攝影技術，老柯是申请了专利的，制片方需要向老柯支付一笔专利费，对于制作方来说这就是成本而不需要去考虑之前的研发细项，那是老柯及其开发合作伙伴考虑的事情，你的明白？

人工成本也不用细说了吧，可以折成工时来计算，游戏开发成本里这个是大项。固定资产折旧，这其实也很简单。举个例子，你买了台工作站用于游戏开发，你推定它使用年限是10年，在开发某个游戏时用了3年，那么这3年的折旧就计入该游戏开发的成本。至于你是用哪种折旧率的计算方式，每个公司可能有不同。软件授权费用要根据软件授权模式，有的是单Title单平台授权的，那成本计算简单极了，直接付的那笔授权费就是这部分成本了。有的是买了一直用的，那也简单，可以象固定资产一样推定使用年限后根据单Title使用周期折旧，这不需要我再教你一遍了吧？

象管理费、市场费等等间接费用的计算，那的确每个公司的细项都会有所不同。

各公司还有区别的是自研发公用软件的成本的摊销方式。比如R星自己做的那各RAGE引擎，比如毒瘤做的水晶工具的中间件，由哪几个项目来摊销，什么比例摊销，这个每个公司会有不同。

回头跟你说说Pixar，我跟你说不清楚现在他们怎么算的确是因为他们被Disney收购后财务是怎么弄的方式不是太清楚。我贴那个是为了向你说明之前Pixar的成本是怎么回事，可惜你还看不懂。简而言之Pixar当时和Disney的关系属于深度的外包关系。P和D签了开发5部动画电影的约（TOY STORY 2不算在内），名义上是D和P各出一部分资金合资拍片，然后P是拿一部分收入分红。然后，P是根据每个Title单独做了一个报价（基本上属于Pixar所有的运营费用在一起还得乘N，包括你所谓的renderman开发费啥的）。实际上P变成了既是小半个老板，又是伙计，然后他核算成本是按照老板方式来算的，即他做的那个报价到他自己头上的摊销。如果现在P还没被D收购，那我可以很明确地告诉你1.75亿绝大部分是P的外包费用，还有其他参与演出人员劳务费，D相关人员劳务费和摊销的管理费用等等。