Red Dead Redemption Remastered Rumoured For PC

C'mon.

I already explained what function those budgets served in their decisions. Past expenses are irrelevant when deciding among potential future projects. The only thing that matters are new costs incurred and new revenue generated. Does sunk cost mean nothing to you? I'm thinking this is might just be a big waste of time here, but I'll show you if this is really necessary.

PART I, consider a hypothetical company with the limited resources for only one project that has these two viable options:
Project P, a pc port of a popular console game, has an expected revenue of $10 while project S, a sequel to an original game with a small but loyal following, only has a revenue of $5; however, the coding behind project P is so poorly optimized that it the project would incur $8 in expenses while project S would be a really cheap 2d game and incur total expenses of $2.

What is the net revenue of project P? What is the net revenue of Project S? Which project does the firm select?
Hint, and by hint, I mean the answer and only answer $2, $3, Project S

PART II, presuming the same constants of PART I, consider the impact of each of the following scenarios on the net revenues of Project P and Project S alternative scenarios, showing your work, and specifying which of the two projects they would
Assuming that Project P's initial console release cost $...., with revenues of $..... ; while Project S's original game cost $.... , with revenues of $.....
Scenario A) Console Expense: $20, Revenue: $30; Game 1 Expense $2, & Revenue $3
Scenario B) Console Expense: $2, Revenue: $3; Game 1 Expense $20, Revenue $30
Scenario C) Console Expense: $10 & Revenue: $15; Game 1 Expense $15 & Revenue $15

Hint, and again, I mean the answer: If you answered with ANY changes from the solution in PART I then YOU LOSE. Past expenses and revenues do not change decisions regarding future projects. Only the the incremental revenues and expenses of any project should be used to select a new product, and doing otherwise demonstrates the sunk-cost fallacy, making it a decision that's so blatantly wrong that there is literally a term to describe the failed logic used when applying it.

This isn't up to debate here.This is like ECON 101 stuff. And I don't mean that figuratively like the expression is normally used, this is literally some econ 101 crap and one of the first things they teach those students.

And, to preempt me having to post again, I really hope you've dignified enough that I shouldn't be waiting for some blatantly false claim that you simply meant the budget of GTA 5 and RDR are factored into the determinations of their incremental revenue or incremental expenses expectations in some dubious attempt to weasel out of the arguments established. You proposed GTA got remastered despite having a larger budget than RDR as if that fact means something relative to RDR getting remastered or not. Meanwhile my main point this entire argument has centered on how the unusually high incremental expenses of rebuilding RDR adversely affects net income estimates to the extent that Rockstar has always found alternate opportunities more profitable than even just porting it---especially noticeable considering it's basically standard practice for their other games, normally they're such high-margin projects, and calls for one and rumors of the damn thing have stretched from now way back to before it was released.

There's not really much I'd presume most people would even bother debate about these facts, but here we are. And I'd say it's always been pretty clear that this here isn't exactly your area of expertise, even before you tried to support your argument with evidence that.... the code isn't optimized for PC and that a PC release has never before been economically viable for them. (one final hint for why, although I hope it's not even needed here....it's not because they don't know the demand, and it's not because of the game's original budget dwarfs any other ports they've done, the real answer: it's because their estimated cost to fix that code for PC release is so high as the articles should make clear.) But I think as obvious as the facts behind RDR's (lack of) release make themselves after writing all this crap, I really can't resist pointing out something else out that just begs to be said after having to write all this crap, but I think there's even less room for debate on it.

You are so out of your depth here that you could map the Mariana Trench.