Honestly I think ten times budget could be attributed to this generation requiring much more money than last generation for blockbusters. Also I don't know if one could really say that all the poor level design and shoddy mechanics in Igrashi games could be attributed to shoddy budgets. I think it is difficult to move from 2D to 3D games and some developers can't manage it to no fault of their own. Anyway it is meaningless to say now whether the Igrashi games in gameplay terms would be better with a larger budget because it won't change what has happened. However I think most would agree that Igrashi 2D games are much much better then his 3D games.
Of course it can.
Less money = less people to work with 3D assets = more reused assets. Developers work on with the limits they have.
LoI and CoD, even on the PS2, couldn't be considered blockbusters on the PS2, AT ALL. The PS2 blockbusters were GoW, DmC, FF, KH, etc... Castlevania was nowhere near these.
There nothing meaningless in the argument, we'll never know if he could make a better game without them giving the chance in the first place. For one, we could have had better assets/graphics in general (considering the limits of PS2).
It's obvious that LoS was the first time Konami tried to make CV a blockbuster. With IGA, the probably only wanted to make something that would give them easy money, like the 2D games.
Exactly!!, Four years ago won 2000 euros a month, now 950 (and I have almost 10 years experience in Oracle technologies). I found the work of chance and work about 10 hours a day.
It is more than possible that the first LOS (but not los2) is cheaper than any 2D castlevania ...
MS is assumed that part of the costs, that is, part of the "payment" was to have the possibility of working with Konami and be known .. that was in the LOS1, now make more your own pace.
Sorry Bergaron, this makes no sense at all. The only thing these salaries means is that they can have even more people on the team. The budget can still be bigger than these other titles.