That assumes more money can produce better results. Imagine if the $115m figure came from legitimate, generous estimates by the development team. They wanted fo

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.