Ghostbusters budget was $15m - $20m

By Ellie Gibson Published 21 July, 2009

Dev would "love to" do another game.

It's been revealed that Ghostbusters cost between $15 million and $20 million to make. That's Ghostbusters the game, of course; the film was made in 1984 and therefore cost about £3.99.

According to Texas newspaper the Star Telegram, "The videogame has already achieved "blockbuster" status with an estimated 1 million units sold. Terminal Reality’s videogame was the product of years of planning and execution, thousands of hours of work [and] a final budget of $15 million - $20 million."

Ghostbusters is now back in fashion, so much so that Dan Aykroyd has said he's working on a third film. So how about another game? "You can bet that if that movie were to come out, we’d just love to do another Ghostbusters game based on it," said Terminal Reality co-founder Mark Randel.

The article goes on to quote "video-game reviewer Ellie Gibson" of "Euro-gamer.net", who is clearly considered the leading authority on such things in Texas. Read her review for the full lowdown.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (33) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • login_name #1 3 years ago

    Before you start a new one, how about you fix the old one? Thank you.

  • BabyJesus #2 3 years ago

    Blasphemy

    Ghostbusters (mostly anything with Bill Murray also) will never go out of fashion.
    Edited by 1 at 21/07/09 @ 09:58

  • JohnnyWashnGo #3 3 years ago

    15 million dollars and they still couldn't write a game that lets you invert the x-axis in the control system.

  • LeD #4 3 years ago

    I thought the game was very decent. A bit repetitive perhaps, and some difficulty spikes, but all in all not your average shovelware.

  • poopmonster #5 3 years ago

    Ghostbusters, the movie, had a budget of $30million, and grossed $239million at the box office.

    Somehow I don't think that will be replicated by the game...:p

  • HermitArcader #6 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Optimaximal #7 3 years ago

    I thought the fact they couldn't make sequels out of it was the reason Activision binned it in the first place!

  • jade2001 #8 3 years ago

    What the hell is it with people complaining about lack of inverting options. A game is playable without it!

    I thought the game was BRILLIANT. It was funny, fun to play an stayed true to the franchise (obviously since Aykroyd and Ramis wrote it).
    I would like a 2nd game but only if Aykroyd and Ramis wrote it AND the guys came back to voice it.

  • Darren #9 3 years ago

    The decision to delay the Wii, PC and Xbox 360 versions in Europe until October/November will surely result in disappointing sales at such a saturated time of year. Many people will likely overlook it because there'll be too many other games coming out at the same time. I guess we can blame Sony for that though...

    It's a lovely game on the PC, I loved it immensely to the point where I just wanted to keep playing it until I finished it. It's a bit shallow perhaps but it captures the essence of the source material almost perfectly and is hugely enjoyable not to mention funny. It's also a decent length which makes up for the lack of multiplayer on that version plus it's cheaper than the console versions anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 21/07/09 @ 11:49

  • IneptPercy #10 3 years ago

    The PC version is kind of broken but can be fixed by messing with a config file, how can there be in AA option? Yet it is there, as a quick mess with the config and all is smooth again.

    As for game play, I love it as its the game I always wanted when I was a kid.

  • Ninja_Tino #11 3 years ago

    Lack of inverting is a big thing! Some find it nigh impossible to play otherwise. If I couldn't invert the y axis I'd be a dead man on all fps's.

  • b00n #12 3 years ago

    invert options should be included in every game, period.

  • MisterSlimm #13 3 years ago

    $15-$20 million? Great accountants they have. What's $5 million between friends?

  • TurboBailey #14 3 years ago

    Im sure you can invert the controls on the PS3 version.

  • Moribundman #15 3 years ago

    @JohnnyWashnGo Invert the X axis?! Wouldn't that make the game unplayable?!

    @NinjaTino Via system settings my 360 defaults games to inverted Y axis where applicable and (back=look up, forward=look down) and the game plays as "normal" to me...

  • cherryuk #16 3 years ago

    It relies too heavily on the PKE meter to be interesting, but is a well made game.

  • Darren #17 3 years ago

    @IneptPercy - Enabling AA via the INI file is not recommended as it causes a huge performance loss even at 2 (MultiX=2, MultiY=2). Better to use nHancer to set the AA Compatibility to STALKER and force it through the graphics drivers IMO. I can run the game with 8X AA even at 1920x1200 with only minor slowdown. Even with 4X AA the jaggies are pretty much non-existent.

  • rhubarbandcustard #18 3 years ago

    I would love to know how games budgets are broken down by costs. I resent paying over the odds for games, and almost always buy at budget prices.

    Why would any game cost so much? It's all virtual.

    You just need a graphics engine,staff and a big shed to sit them in. Right?

    How many staff do you employ for costs to soar to twenty million? How big is this shed?

  • Darren #19 3 years ago

    @rhubarbandcustard - Ghostbusters came out on a number of different formats, which presumably all had their own sub-team working and testing them, all being paid a salary (presumably). Games also typically take a year or two to develop plus there's additional costs involved if they use a custom-built engine as Terminal Reality have for their own games. This is also a licensed game too remember so that is more expense. Factor in advertising, etc., and I guess it all adds up.

  • sneetch #20 3 years ago

    "Ellie Gibson?" "Eurogamer?"

    I haven't had time to check (I'm a busy man after all) but I'm pretty sure that's a made up name and a made up website.

  • rhubarbandcustard #21 3 years ago

    Ghostbusters licence value in 2009 - 1 dollar
    Bill Murray voice over, based on star value - 1 dollar
    Dan Ackroyd voice over, based on star value - 1 dollar
    other original ghostbusters voice over, based on star value - less than one dollar
    Ghostbusters theme tune licensing deal - 1 dollar and 25 cents

    This is freaking Ghostbusters! LOL

    20 million on this 80's nonsense makes as much sense as spending 20 million dollars on a Rainbow videogame (even if featuring authentic voice over work from Zippy and Bungle.)

  • Daryoon #22 3 years ago

    20 million on this 80's nonsense makes as much sense as spending 20 million dollars on a Rainbow videogame (even if featuring authentic voice over work from Zippy and Bungle.)

    I'd buy a 360 for that. Serious.

  • FWB #23 3 years ago

    Here's a suggestion... could EG do an article covering how an average (if such a thing exists) game's budget is broken down? Not of vital importance but it'd be fairly interesting.

  • IneptPercy #24 3 years ago

    Darren:-

    I am running an ATI card so chaging the excuteable to UT3.exe lets the CCC control it, I tried it there and then tried it using the ini tweak. Setting the ini AA doesn't seem to use 2x, it looks more like 2x2 supersampling to me.

    Either way after messing around a bit I found the ini tweak gave the best results with the smallest performance hit for me.

    There is a few ways around it but in the end it should already be in the game options. Its this kind of thing which gives PC gaming a bad name.

  • aidey6 #25 3 years ago

    I wonder if Terminal Reality are using the same mathematician who worked out that the PS3 version was displaying 75% of the resolution of the 360 version for the sequel.....

    http://ww w.joystiq.com/2009/06/17/ghostb...
    Edited by 3 at 21/07/09 @ 15:51

  • johnny_death #26 3 years ago

    I want a sequel too, great game.

  • homerbert #27 3 years ago

    @ Poopmonster.

    The game sold a million units at approximately $60 a game. Which means the game grossed 60 million dollars already, on a budget of approximately 17million. That means it grossed three and a half times its costs. That's after a short period of time and before it's been properly released in Europe. So not movie figures, but impressive nonetheless.

    That said, the figures for both the movie and the game are useless as they don't count distrbution, prints, advertising, the proportion of the gross the creators see, etc etc.

    Bit of fun to number crunch anyway.

    Eoin

  • El-Dev #28 3 years ago

    "Neg me all you like homos, it's still the truth. "

    I think we should all take a little time to appreciate this comment from an all round nice guy.


    As for Ghostbusters, I'll wait for it to be £20 or so. Don't think it deserves full price at the minute.

  • WJF #29 3 years ago

    Woah, wait, no inverted controls?

    I know for cack-handed people (ho ho) that sounds like nothing, but for those of us that simply cannot use a joystick when up is up and down is down, it basically breaks a game.

    EDIT: For certain types of game, that is. Not beat-em-ups or whatnot.
    Edited by 1 at 21/07/09 @ 23:01

  • IneptPercy #30 3 years ago

    My brother is the same with this inverting thing, he won't accept that a short period of getting use to it and playing games none inverted will cure him of this strange thing.

  • smelly #31 3 years ago

    That doesnt sound right to me.. $20m isnt that much for a normal game... but in this one you have to factor in the cast voice overs - bill murray probably made that much just to say "hello"

  • smelly #32 3 years ago

    "Which means the game grossed 60 million dollars already, on a budget of approximately 17million. That means it grossed three and a half times its costs."


    Im sure you know this already - but the developer/publisher probably only sees about $10 or $15 of that $60 price tag... $30 goes straight to the shop keeper, then you have to pay sony/distributors/marketing/etc etc.

  • homerbert #33 3 years ago

    "but the developer/publisher probably only sees about $10 or $15 of that $60 price tag."

    Yeah. I was just amused because for some reason everyone acts like box office grosses go straight to the studio. If I'd a penny for every time I read "the film cost "$30million but made $32million so it's in profit, I'd be $32 million dollars in profit myself. It ignores how ridiculously complex finances for entertainment are.

    It seems to be becoming increasingly common in games news stories, which is a bit sad. The figures are meaningless without a lot of insider knowlege and a shiload of number crunching.

    It'll be interesting to see how digital distribution affects this. Something low budget, distributed online like World of Goo woud be easier to analyse. I'm sure we'll see more of that sort of thing in future.

    Eoin