> game developers are typically underpaid and overworked

And marketing people aren't?

I'm a game developer, and it depresses me how much undeserved hatred and contempt "suits" get form us "technical" guys. We work hard to make something, and they work hard to get it to the people. If you don't like the idea that games like GTAV should be advertised in order to get the money they deserve (and I think no one here disagrees that GTAV deserves it), you should be disappointed with the audience who wouldn't notice it if not for a marketing budget.

Ok let's just ignore the argument of whether marketing people or developers work harder (which, personally, having worked in both sides, I don't think is even a question.) And let's also ignore the argument of whether marketing departments contribute positively to society as compared to development departments.

Let's just look at it logically; the budget dedicated to development determines the quality and quantity of what can be created. If you have a finite pool and < 50% is going to development and > 50% is going to marketing then logically you're going to get a lesser product than if you put say, 75% in development and 25% in marketing.

So yeah, that's sad. You don't even need to get into who works harder, etc.

That assumes more money can produce better results. Imagine if the $115m figure came from legitimate, generous estimates by the development team. They wanted for nothing, had sufficient staff, sufficient resources, etc.

Then imagine marketing submitted their budget independently. Their proposal included some high cost, unique advertising campaigns and totaled $150m.

Both got approved.

In most circumstances, budget is a finite resource that people fight for, and one person getting more means someone else getting less. But for a very successful company releasing pretty much the world's most successful game, maybe they just gave everyone what they wanted/needed and marketing's costs somehow were legitimately higher.

I agree it seems weird to have the split like that, but not all development efforts are cash deprived, and if it isn't then more money won't help much.

Even if more money can't produce "better" content, it can produce MORE of it. There's no question if they changed the split to 75% dedicated to development they could have hired MORE artists and MORE level designers and ended up with even more content in the world. That's simple logic.

I'm not singling out Rockstar here, ALL huge companies have this kind of ridiculous split between development and marketing in today's world. It's just the sad reality of how business is done.

I agree with your argument completely. The point of my comment was that the audience, and not marketing people, are to blame for that.

I totally agree,but aren't already gamers psyched about GTA franchise (I am!!)? Yes GTA deserves it.

Depressing? What would have been more depressing is that they might not have received a bonus had there been no marketing and the game didn't meet budget.