Because if they were marketing it that heavily here, it stands to reason and all common sense that they would market it just as heavily in the US. You don't spend that kind of money marketing a game in just one region/market, you dedicate those kinds of resources when you're planning a multi-regional marketing blitz and that's exactly what Sony did with I:SS.
We know it was a multi-million campaign in the UK/EU, it was undoubtedly the same in the US. The idea that Sony would only spend that kind of money to market the game in one region is laughable in the extreme.
Again, that's not the issue. I find it highly unlikely that the US marketing spend for Infamous was anywhere near what EA/MS spent for Titanfall in the US. Sony aren't stupid, they will have deployed resources where they would make the most difference.
Also, the $100m figure quoted by that article does not seem realistic. There is absolutely no way that the corporate heads in Sony would allow so much to be spunked on a single game. Especially one with such a marginal appeal. Even with the solid 1m sold figure, that derives revenue to Sony of around $30m, afaik, Sony rarely make games that require more than 2m sales to break even with marketing included.
What you are not taking into account is the extraordinary spend by MS to include TF in every sale with the hardware over the last month, that alone will have cost more than the total marketing spend for Infamous. Even if MS have sold just 600k TF bundles, that alone would cost them $25-30m, and they still have a lot of stock left in the retail channel. That must be included in the marketing budget for TF, it's not free for MS to go down that route. The other cost would be whatever MS paid EA to delay the 360 version, it's pretty clear now that the delays to the 360 version were not for technical reasons, so that means EA must have had an incentive to delay that SKU. Again, that's another $5-7m. The last bit of indirect marketing spend was funding retailer price cuts or incentives, that all comes from the marketing budget. Then direct marketing spend, which in the US for a shooter will have been higher than for a hero sandbox. The marginal appeal for the genres are in different leagues in the US, and the nation as a whole is much more open to Xbox as a brand, something MS will have wanted to capitalise on with TF's marketing.
While in Europe or here in the UK I could see Sony spending the same kind of money on Infamous in terms of marketing as MS for TF, in the US I don't see it. Based on the appeal of the genre, the multiplier for marketing spend on shooters is much higher than for hero sandbox games. Add in the pre-existing hype, manufactured or otherwise, for TF and that multiplier increases.
Finally, I think it has to be taken into account that Infamous is just another game to SCE, it's nothing special. Fun game, great graphics, but it is just another title from their first party studio line up. TF was supposed to be the game changer for MS and in the US I believe the marketing spend will have reflected that.
