First you have a poor understanding of the phantom dust situation. The 5 mil wasn't for the full game. It was merely for a prototype or proof of concept. The full game would have cost a lot more.
Wrong. The proof of concept was the part they displayed in the screenshot when Xbox green-lighted and granted them the 5 million in the first place. They liked what they saw and they wanted the development team to finish it. The team asked for more money in order to do this, Microsoft felt that they already had enough money, so the whole thing was blown up. What would the point of Microsoft asking for a single player campaign, more fleshed out multiplayer, and gameplay footage for E3, all for a "proof of concept"? No, they had already passed that point in development.
Second it doesn't mater what the graphics look like you still have to pay programmers to make the game. You still need artists and voice actors. You still need writers and engineers, producers, directors, etc
Of course but that doesn't mean it takes 5 million dollars to do it, or even 500k for that matter. Dust: An Elysian Tale had all that and was done with a 40k from Microsoft plus extra in-house.
Lets make a hypothetical scenario. You are making an "indie" game.
Let's not, because this is the part where I start laughing. I know plenty about this subject.
Each of these jobs pulls in six figures.
LOL, no they don't.
Again, Dust: An Elysian Tale had great voice acting. The entire game budget was less than 100k. Probably half that.
And no I'm not arguing that DAET is on the level of this game as far as what's going into it, but I'm making a point that it can be done and the internet tends to go overboard with their obsession with high numbers and stat stuffing.
So for one year working on the game your budget is at the very least 400,000.
No it wouldn't be.
And that's without even talking about purchasing equipment or Paying for office space, testers, researchers, community managers, ect.
Which costs millions right? LOL
Then you have to talk about licensing fees. Most games use engines or other technology that you have to pay money in order to use.
A lot of them are free now. Taking a hit on the backend doesn't mean anything because it's based according to the success of the product. That's not an issue.
Then in order to sell the game you have to pay each platform holder a fee in order to out the game on that platform. Its said it costs 6 figures just to launch on each perspective platform.
No it varies, depending on said platform, who you know, and networking skills in general.
5 mill is cheap for any game in 2015
An indie game? Definitely not.
More work and degree of difficulty went into Shadowrun and that kickstarter was 1 million. That Baldur's wannabe game won 1-2 million kickstarter and was marketed and critically acclaimed everywhere (granted it's PC only but my point still stands). More work and degree of difficulty was put into that game also. The idea that this 2.5 D game somehow has double the budget of those previously mentioned, and compares to AAA budgets, is laughable.
