Blade Runner game would have destroyed Gearbox says Pitchford
License "would've been the end of Gearbox" claims Aliens: Colonial Marines dev
Creating a game adaption of classic science fiction movie Blade Runner "would've been the end of Gearbox", claims CEO Randy Pitchford in a new interview.
Speaking in the Official PlayStation Magazine, Pitchford claimed that the company had a list of dream properties in 2008 and that it "got them all". Post 2008 the developer has annouced Sega sequel Samba de Amigo, movie tie-in Aliens: Colonial Marines and the release of Duke Nukem Forever.
"Blade Runner was on [the list]," says Pitchford. "We had it too and we were like, 'No, we can't.' That game would've cost like $40m to make and sold about 600,000 units - and that would have been the end of us.
"There's no rational business model that would have allowed that to make sense. If we'd made it with a business model that did work, it would not have been the Blade Runner game we all would have wanted."
In the interview, as related by CVG, Pitchford revealed that fellow Gearbox co-founder Brian Martell met with Alien and Blade Runner director Ridley Scott to discuss plans for the game.
Two video games have been created based on the film, the first a contemporary tie-in for 8-bit computers that for licensing reasons was officially based only on the film score. In 1997 Command & Conquer creators Westwood Studios created a graphic adventure 'side story' inspired by the film.
Even a good demo should cost a fraction of that cost to produce something decent and immersive, with the right crew, studio and project management using a small incubation studio/crew.
Alas, I still only have the '97 game to play...
(Btw. If you can find a copy of the Westwood game, go for it, it's pretty awesome).
Now if they were really serious about a Blade Runner game, it doesnt cost much for a small incubation team to produce a proof of concept Blade Runner esque IP without the name to back it.
1 concept artist
1 programmer
1 3D dude
1 audio dude/ete
3 months pay.
Lets say this was promising, I still couldn't fit in $40m.
But I do postulate, with that amount of money, one could produce a string of 3 AAlite games (1.5 year schedule), with polish, fun and new IPs, some high quality casual games (8m-1 year development), and some XBLA/PSN/Facebook titles for $15-20m and (if rent was cheap) probably build a new satellite studio and still have some change to boot.
"Bladerunner? Is that a l33t ice hockey game?"
So, I agree that it shouldn't necissarily cost any studio that much to make a good Bladerunner game, it is possibly correct that it would cost Gearbox that much to do a game that did both the licence and the studio justice.
Eg 1. id software - RAGE. They have their own tech, they have the AAA manpower. They just need to figure if buying a license is worth it, or produce their own version...although they have a post apocalyptic skillset, its not that far a jump to move into a bladerunner dieselpunk world.
Eg 2. Guerilla Games (they have the purchasing power. They have the manpower)
Eg 3 DICE (they have the tech, manpower and european aesthetics to do a awesome job)
But in reality I would probably choose Remedy as the developer.