You have got to be kidding me...... http://myfacewhen.com/323
More money spent on development would probably mean more jobs, which means more employment for those out there looking for work, and more people working on a game means more would be put into making and polishing the game, as well as things like writing the story, testing, coding, etc. And if the game were spent carefully on and polished up with such a huge budget if it would receive so much free advertising from great reviews and stories being featured on websites that it would easily offset not being advertised as much.
Both sides win, both companies can make money if they offer something great but different, that's what competition is supposed to be about, its supposed to bring out the best in something like in sports for example. Two football teams both want to win the championship, both are great teams, but simply trying to emulate and copy what the other team does and trying to get close the exact same players on your team while choosing to run a similar scheme and strategy won't give you the edge over them just because what they did was wildly successful. Build your own team and strategy to compete, and everyone (including the fans) win. :)
No offense, but that's wrong. Yes, more people will get paid if you hire more people. In programming, however, adding more people to a project can make the project actually take longer
. It's known as Brook's law. Of course, this is not true in all cases, but is generally true. People coming onto the project need to learn the entire system and people already working on the project will need to take more time teaching them everything. If you care about this at all, I'd recommend reading the book The Mythical Man-Month.
Similarly, code doesn't get magically polished and efficient if you spend more time on it. It just doesn't happen.
However, one has to ask the question of whether the money spent on marketing is a net gain or a net loss. With $100 million spent on marketing, and assuming a profit of $30 on each game sold (which is probably pretty generous), you'd need to sell an additional 3.3 million copies just to make the marketing campaign break even (for reference, CoD4 sold about 13 million copies total). Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that the game wouldn't sell significantly fewer copies if there were no marketing at all, but when marketing campaigns grow so large one has to ask at what point are they hitting significant diminishing returns. If a $10 million marketing campaign results in a game selling 6 million copies, and a $80 million marketing campaign results in a game selling 7 million copies, then it's pretty clear that spending that additional $70 million was a waste of money. Now, I realize that without any actual numbers I'm mostly just handwaving from my armchair over here, but when I see marketing budgets as big as the ones being talked about here I can't help but get the feeling that this kind of marketing is achieving market saturation at only a fraction of the total budget, with the rest of the budget just being wasted money.
A very valid point. I wouldn't be surprised to learn (if it were actually possible to get numbers) that they were reaching the point where every extra dollar was making them less than a dollar back.