{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/25/2015 11:11:31 AM
4
The free dlc, open world, in depth character builds, mature content (destiny rated T haha), story and its characters, the lore and universe, diverse enemies, choices and consequences.
They are two different games, for sure. But seriously can't deny the quality CD Prokekt did with $50 mil budget compared to Bungies $500 mil budget.
There's a lesson to be learned here, I just know it is.
English
-
The 500mill is for a decade of games and marketing dumbass. This explains why you prefer The Witcher3, it has enough tutorials to offset your limited intelligence
-
Very true. It's not truly a comparison, but if we could break it down, let's say Destiny costed $50 mil to make ($500 over 10 years) per year. Just to make. Witcher 3 is probably around $16 mil a year, ($50 mil over 3 years). That's a rough estimate though due to currency conversion and supposedly most of the budget went to marketing, not making it. If that's not viable to look at, maybe look at the reputation. Bungie started off high and mighty as the halo makers and seems like they are getting a lot of negative feedback on media and gaming news more and more as dlc comes out. Witcher however is getting mostly very positive feedback and even giving recognition to the original Polish author. [spoiler]insulting someone's intelligence doesn't make you intelligent, makes you less sometimes[/spoiler]
-
I guess as soon as somebody has an opinion, they're a dumbass. Obviously, you must be a huge genius.
-
Edited by dmdh1989: 6/25/2015 9:30:47 PMMakes me think 499 million spent on marketing and 1 on the game when I compare the actual Content. Witcher spend around half the game budget on marketing. Which was paid by bandai
