• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
I wouldn't be surprised if Uncharted 4 cost half of that.

Edit: Rumors were around 50m before marketing, so around two thirds to half indeed (I doubt the marketing budget was as big)
That number makes zero sense for Uncharted 4.

We know from the LA Times profile that they had 200 internal employees on Uncharted 4: http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...ty-dog-uncharted-20160523-snap-htmlstory.html

The game had a 3 year dev cycle.

Per employee, you need to pay for their salary, benefits, office space, and hardware/software. This works out to an industry average of $10,000 per month for a AAA employee even at a company as low profile as Double Fine, and can go up to $20,000 a month in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Let's assume Naughty Dog pays very poorly for their stature and location, has a bad office, and gives the team old tools, so we stick with the $10,000 a month estimate.

$120,000 per year * 3 years * 200 employees = $72 million

That's before we even start to account for outsourcing, bonuses, or the fact that a studio like Naughty Dog nigh assuredly pays their staff quite well and gives them great resources and hardware. It was very likely at least $90-$100+ million
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
Platform exclusivity isn't strictly Microsoft's fault, especially with Titanfall, so not sure why you took it as me blaming Microsoft. Ultimately the buck falls to the Publisher for accepting such offers. And the discussion isn't about blaming Microsoft, but discussing the ramifications platform exclusivity on lower install base platforms can have to the mindshare, perception and marketing of a franchise.

Titanfall 2 sold poorly because it was MP wise a far poorer game than the original.
 

Edgar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,180
That number makes zero sense for Uncharted 4.

We know from the LA Times profile that they had 200 internal employees on Uncharted 4: http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...ty-dog-uncharted-20160523-snap-htmlstory.html

The game had a 3 year dev cycle.

Per employee, you need to pay for their salary, benefits, office space, and hardware/software. This works out to an industry average of $10,000 per month for a AAA employee even at a company as low profile as Double Fine, and can go up to $20,000 a month in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Let's assume Naughty Dog pays very poorly for their stature and location, has a bad office, and gives the team old tools, so we stick with the $10,000 a month estimate.

$120,000 per year * 3 years * 200 employees = $72 million

That's before we even start to account for outsourcing, bonuses, or the fact that a studio like Naughty Dog nigh assuredly pays their staff quite well and gives them great resources and hardware. It was very likely at least $90-$100+ million
Yeah, but that ruins the narrative that Sony first party games are developed much much cheaper than any other third party games.
 

ArmGunar

PlayStatistician
Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,527
Yeah, but that ruins the narrative that Sony first party games are developed much much cheaper than any other third party games.

- Uncharted 1 and 2 : $20m each (development only)
- Killzone 2 : $21m (dev only)
- Heavy Rain : €20m (dev only)
- Beyond Two Souls : €25m (dev), $52m (dev + marketing)
- God of War 3 : $44m (dev only)
- The Last of Us : €40m (dev only)
- Gran Turismo 5 : €60m (dev only)

To compare with the estimated $100m development cost for Tomb Raider 2013

But games can be much cheaper, for example first Bioshock costs $15m
 

-girgosz-

Member
Aug 16, 2018
1,042
Where is the Spiderman PR from Sony for WW sales? Honestly can't wait for it. Maybe they're gonna do it for 2 weeks like UC 4 and HZD because legs are so great.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
But they did pay full price when it released on Ps4. Rise sold very well on it. If they lost interest after playing Rise then it already invalides the point that the exclusivity had anything to do with it.

RotTR was released on PS4 16th October 2016, and its price was reduced to 30€ by the 1st of December. That's when I bought it myself, as I wanted a new game to showcase the just released PS4 Pro. I imagine I wasn't the ony one who did so.

Later releases are known to sell less, and spite has nothing to do with it. It was that way with Bioshock and Mass Effect 2 on the PS3. Although, RotTR's sales most likely didn't suffer to the same extent due to its legacy on the PS platform.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
23,950
Titanfall 2 sold poorly because it was MP wise a far poorer game than the original.
It was doomed the second it was inbetween CoD and Battlefield. The quality is irrelevant at that point, it sold poorly and then had the dead game stigma attached to it, which was just an extra death sentence on top.
It was such a dumb move on EA's part.
 

NHale

Member
Oct 25, 2017
443
It was doomed the second it was inbetween CoD and Battlefield. The quality is irrelevant at that point, it sold poorly and then had the dead game stigma attached to it, which was just an extra death sentence on top.
It was such a dumb move on EA's part.

I would say it was exactly the opposite, because if you want to buy studio X the best time to do it is right after the last game sales fails to meet expectations...
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
23,950
I would say it was exactly the opposite, because if you want to buy studio X the best time to do it is right after the last game sales fails to meet expectations...
They only bought Respawn after someone triggered a clause by trying to buy them out first. I can't remember who, was a Chinese company I think.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
Some folks really are the worse kind of gamers sometimes, especially those who prefer to acknowledge their 'gut feelings' over somebody who works in sales — as their job — in real life.



If I remember correctly, this very same person was happily spreading misinformation about why and how Spider-Man came to be an exclusive on the PlayStation 4.

Who corrected him?

None other than somebody who works for Insomniac Games.
Didn't he say that even after that he still didn't believe the deal happened in that way? lol

I'd defnitely be interested in seeing that discourse.
 

Saint-14

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
14,477
That number makes zero sense for Uncharted 4.

We know from the LA Times profile that they had 200 internal employees on Uncharted 4: http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...ty-dog-uncharted-20160523-snap-htmlstory.html

The game had a 3 year dev cycle.

Per employee, you need to pay for their salary, benefits, office space, and hardware/software. This works out to an industry average of $10,000 per month for a AAA employee even at a company as low profile as Double Fine, and can go up to $20,000 a month in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Let's assume Naughty Dog pays very poorly for their stature and location, has a bad office, and gives the team old tools, so we stick with the $10,000 a month estimate.

$120,000 per year * 3 years * 200 employees = $72 million

That's before we even start to account for outsourcing, bonuses, or the fact that a studio like Naughty Dog nigh assuredly pays their staff quite well and gives them great resources and hardware. It was very likely at least $90-$100+ million
You think Spider-Man's budget is comparable or higher?
 

bombshell

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,927
Denmark
Where is the Spiderman PR from Sony for WW sales? Honestly can't wait for it. Maybe they're gonna do it for 2 weeks like UC 4 and HZD because legs are so great.

If they're doing a first 3 day sold through announcement like they did for God of War, then we're still not as far out from release as when the press release for that was issued. That is tomorrow.

If Spider-Man compares favourably to that new fastest selling record by God of War, then I think they will want to make that direct comparison by giving us first 3 days of sales here too.

I'd defnitely be interested in seeing that discourse.

Let me see if I can dig it up.
 

-girgosz-

Member
Aug 16, 2018
1,042
If they're doing a first 3 day sold through announcement like they did for God of War, then we're still not as far out from release as when the press release for that was issued. That is tomorrow.

If Spider-Man compares favourably to that new fastest selling record by God of War, then I think they will want to make that direct comparison by giving us first 3 days of sales here too.

Thanks for the info ;)
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,280
It would be nice to have some real, solid numbers regarding development costs, marketing costs and sold through units of every game.

Or a place when we could check the numbers that are known.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
https://www.resetera.com/posts/10828714/
https://www.resetera.com/posts/10833991/
https://www.resetera.com/posts/10834028/
https://www.resetera.com/posts/10834857/

You can read more context in between these linked posts and after the last linked post (which is the jstevenson deal info post)

Wow. J Stevenson's post in the last link should make it perfectly clear, but apparently some refuse to believe anything that contradicts their point of view. Especially when it compliments something they obviously don't like;

Sony FP has the best pipeline and support system in the business to create big story-based games. Some people don't realize all of the support a publisher can give a developer, and that's true of every major publisher for every major game.

Marvel approached Sony, wanting them to do one of their characters right with a big first-party story game.
 

SolidSnakex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,324
Lol, and yet they had that white tiger game on PS4.

But that was a complete game regardless of its quality. With that said, the issue with Early Access and the PS4 is an interesting one. Because earlier this month Boundless was available for EA on the platform

https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/09/06/boundless-early-access-starts-tomorrow-on-ps4/

And Warface was available last month

https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/08/14/warface-early-access-starts-today-on-ps4/
 

Nightengale

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,708
Malaysia
Sony has long allowed Early Access on PS4, but they don't have a dedicated programme for it unlike Xbox. So it's kinda... random or unclear how games get in.
 

Sangetsu-II

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,503
But that was a complete game regardless of its quality. With that said, the issue with Early Access and the PS4 is an interesting one. Because earlier this month Boundless was available for EA on the platform

https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/09/06/boundless-early-access-starts-tomorrow-on-ps4/

And Warface was available last month

https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/08/14/warface-early-access-starts-today-on-ps4/

Sony does Early Access for feature complete games, they don't do early access for half assed, will finish later games.
 

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
You think Spider-Man's budget is comparable or higher?
I would guess comparable. Insomniac is larger, but they have some small projects that would eat up the difference, and development time seems to be in about the same ballpark.

Mind, these budgets actually are a lot smaller than what you see with some of the behemoth 500-1000+ person teams third parties throw out there. It's just that I think a lot of people have the perception that big first party games are $40-$50 million while big third party ones are $75-$100 million, but the top of that scale has more so shifted to $75-$100 million for the former and like $100-$200 million for the latter.

That's not to say things don't go down quite a bit below that with something like Detroit or Prey as well, but I just wanted to contextualize that Tomb Raider isn't exorbitantly expensive for what they delivered these days.
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,280
Funny how not being in the PS4 helped Forrnite to basically steal PUBG's dreams.

This Fortnite thing is crazy. Al the kids of all my non-gamer friends are obsessed with it. Everybody knows about it. All the kids ofc but also all the parents, teachers...everyone.

And only the hardcore know about PUBG.

I'm in a playstation country though, I wonder how is it WW.
 

Shmunter

Banned
May 28, 2018
377
Funny how not being in the PS4 helped Forrnite to basically steal PUBG's dreams.

This Fortnite thing is crazy. Al the kids of all my non-gamer friends are obsessed with it. Everybody knows about it. All the kids ofc but also all the parents, teachers...everyone.

And only the hardcore know about PUBG.

I'm in a playstation country though, I wonder how is it WW.

Just like in life, aligning yourself with the underdog results in pain. And in business it's almost self abuse masochistic.
 
Aug 26, 2018
1,793
SoTR is going up, its at #2 and #3 in the US and UK Top Paid Xbox Games. It is up from a few days back when it was not even in the Top 10.

#1 on Steamspy

#8 on Amazon UK, #3 on Amazon DE, #3 on Amazon FR, #5 on Amazon IT. The game is not falling, its holding steady even in the Amazon US at #38.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,240
SoTR is going up, its at #2 and #3 in the US and UK Top Paid Xbox Games. It is up from a few days back when it was not even in the Top 10.

#1 on Steamspy

#8 on Amazon UK, #3 on Amazon DE, #3 on Amazon FR, #5 on Amazon IT. The game is not falling, its holding steady even in the Amazon US at #38.
giphy-downsized-medium.gif


Good news. The game will probably go on to be a moderate success, enough to keep the series going but timid enough to tell them they need to change up the formula. Don't turn the series into Assassin's Creed.
 
Dec 15, 2017
1,354
I picked them both up but put Tomb Raider down to go back to Spidey after maybe half an hour.

Thee fun factor here is just not comparable imo
 

Linus815

Member
Oct 29, 2017
19,692
The japanese Tomb Raider sales numbers are quite a bit better than Rise's and similiar to TR2013's, which isn't bad.

[PS4] Shadow of the Tomb Raider <ADV> (Square Enix) {2018.09.14} (¥7.980) - 32.172 / NEW
[PS4] Rise of the Tomb Raider: 20 Year Celebration (Square Enix, 10/13/16) – 21,152 (New)
[PS3] Tomb Raider (Square Enix, 04/25/13) – 35,250 (New)

Couldn't find the Xbox version charting (obviously).
 

chobel

Attempting to circumvent ban with an alt-account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,493
SoTR is going up, its at #2 and #3 in the US and UK Top Paid Xbox Games. It is up from a few days back when it was not even in the Top 10.

#1 on Steamspy

#8 on Amazon UK, #3 on Amazon DE, #3 on Amazon FR, #5 on Amazon IT. The game is not falling, its holding steady even in the Amazon US at #38.

A new AAA game not being in #1 on Xbox Charts is not good lol

Steamspy ranking isn't based on sales.

Amazon rankings on Europe look good. But calling #38 on Amazon US "not falling"? Yeah no, that's not good at all.

EDIT: It's now 100k-200K on Steamspy? WTH?
 
Aug 26, 2018
1,793
A new AAA game not being in #1 on Xbox Charts is not good lol

Steamspy ranking isn't based on sales.

Amazon rankings on Europe look good. But calling #38 on Amazon US "not falling"? Yeah no, that's not good at all.

Its only below NBA 2K19, which is also a AAA game and super popular in the US. (FYI, it was the 2nd best selling game in the US Last year). The game started off much lower and is climbing, thats the point.

Steamspy may not be super accurate but its still a good estimate.

The game launched at #40 ish on Amazon US, it is again not falling, but slightly rising which was my point. I am not saying its an EPIC, HUGE success but just saying that its not doom and gloom for TR and the franchise as a few guys were suggesting.
 

chobel

Attempting to circumvent ban with an alt-account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,493
Its only below NBA 2K19, which is also a AAA game and super popular in the US. (FYI, it was the 2nd best selling game in the US Last year). The game started off much lower and is climbing, thats the point.

Steamspy may not be super accurate but its still a good estimate.

The game launched at #40 ish on Amazon US, it is again not falling, but slightly rising which was my point. I am not saying its an EPIC, HUGE success but just saying that its not doom and gloom for TR and the franchise as a few guys were suggesting.

NBA is not a new AAA game, this is its 2nd week vs 1st week of Tomb Raider. And what about TR not being #1 on UK?

I'm not talking about whether Steamspy estimates are good or not, the ranking you see its frontpage it's not based on sales (estimates or not). If you want to see PC sales ranking, check Steam Top Selling (it's #3).

I see it's #42 on Amazon US now, down since you last saw it; it must be falling... Joking, when talking about low chart positions, the up (or down) of few ranks is pretty much meaningless, especially in Amazon hourly ranking.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
That number makes zero sense for Uncharted 4.

We know from the LA Times profile that they had 200 internal employees on Uncharted 4: http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...ty-dog-uncharted-20160523-snap-htmlstory.html

The game had a 3 year dev cycle.

Per employee, you need to pay for their salary, benefits, office space, and hardware/software. This works out to an industry average of $10,000 per month for a AAA employee even at a company as low profile as Double Fine, and can go up to $20,000 a month in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Let's assume Naughty Dog pays very poorly for their stature and location, has a bad office, and gives the team old tools, so we stick with the $10,000 a month estimate.

$120,000 per year * 3 years * 200 employees = $72 million

That's before we even start to account for outsourcing, bonuses, or the fact that a studio like Naughty Dog nigh assuredly pays their staff quite well and gives them great resources and hardware. It was very likely at least $90-$100+ million

Don't take this the wrong way but what you just said simply isn't true. I get that that this is dirty math but that's not how dev cycles work.

You can't take the total amount of employees time X to reach an approximation of the budget when you're dealing with a studio with multiple concurrent projects.Forget having multiple ongoing projects, Even with singular projects you still have to account for the shifts in team size due to DEV (pre-production, production, crunch, ongoing post release support).

At the time of that article is it possible that it was crunch time and even other teams were also involved? Absolutely!

The LA time article is saying that the entirety of the 200 person studio is involved in a semi semi flat hierarchic structure with many people wearing multiple hats, and at the time they were focused on one game. Not that the entire studio is only working on and budgeted on Uncharted 4 for 3 straight years.

To show why the claim that Uncharted 4 has been in dev via (as the LA Times article says) all of Naughty Dog for 3 straight years can't possibly be true, let's take a look at the last few years of their output.

So Uncharted 4 was released on May 10, 2016 and, taking what you said at face value, was in development for 3 years.

That would mean by it was in development from May 10, 2013 to May 10 2016


May 10, 2013
UNCHARTED 4 BEGINS DEVELOPMENT

June 14, 2013
The Last of Us PS3 Edition completed and released
Ongoing support for The Last of Us (DLC, MP, Content, updates)
Last of Us PS4 Edition begins development following int completion of PS3 version - https://gamerant.com/the-last-of-us-ps4-development-dates/
The Last of Us Part II begins development - https://gearnuke.com/the-last-of-us-part-2-production-info-e3-demo-downgrade/

"Production on The Last of Us sequel started once they were done with the work on the original game. However, Uncharted 4 was also in active development so the small team that was working on The Last of Us sequel was taken back to Uncharted 4.

This repeated again with The Lost Legacy but once they were done with it, all hands were on deck for The Last of Us Part 2."


Meaning that TLOUII Team only came on the Uncharted 4 and LL (which itself was a separate team, started dev after Uncharted 4 and was made during the development of The Last of Us Part II) during crunch time for the project.

On November 14, 2013
Teaser trailer for Uncharted 4 is shown - With voice work and graphics on display. It should be noted that at Naughty Dog they start development and creative development concurrently. Meaning that while TLOU II and TLOU PS4 were being made, Uncharted 4 was being worked on in story and dev.

July 29th 2014
The Last of Us PS4 Edition released
Ongoing support for PS4 edition (patches, tech revisions, DLC)

Dec 6, 2014
The Last of Us Part II is announced and a Trailer is shown - https://youtu.be/W2Wnvvj33Wo

So just to Review, while Uncharted 4 was in development, Naughty Dog:

Released The Last of Us on PS3 - with ongoing content and support
Started work on The Last of Us Part II
Released The Last of Us on PS4 - with ongoing content and support

While TLOUII has been in development, Naughty Dog has

Released Uncharted 4 - with ongoing content and support
Released The Lost Legacy

So even then to take this a step further, you would not apply the same logic you just did to the development of The Last of Us Part II. There's no way that the estimated budget you put forward is accurate in methodology or result. We can take what's considered 'standard' in the industry when it comes to dev phases to arrive at a better number, but I think the point stands.

EDIT: Moved the big about outsourcing to another post.

Yeah, but that ruins the narrative that Sony first party games are developed much much cheaper than any other third party games.

It depends on the studios, but AAA IP multi-platform development (which is the norm) is typically more expensive these days due to the added overhead. I don't think that's a 'narrative'. What have you got that says otherwise? Anything?
 
Last edited:

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
You think Spider-Man's budget is comparable or higher?

If I was betting I'd say a higher budget than Uncharted 4 including a bigger marketing budget given the (potential) reach of the IP. Seeing as Spider-Man is one of the most recognizable things on the planet.

Insomniac has said that Spider-Man had the largest number of people working on it in the companies history (both in overall project size and core team) and would only say that it had been in development for 'quite some time'. 'Open world' games are notoriously expensive.

Given that Brian Itihar (who was the producer on Sunset Overdrive) worked on Spider-Man as the creative director, it's possible that Spider-Man started during the development of Sunset Overdrive. Sunset Overdrive came out in 2014.

Naughty Dog was making games on the (relative) cheap during the PS3 era. Uncharted 1 /2 were around 20m each before marketing. There's no reasons that they suddenly would become less efficient these days (while scale has still increased).


Sony's projects outsource in bulk to the same Chinese developers as the third party games, mind you.

While this is true, chris 1515 correctly says:

If you compare end credit list, it seems Sony projects even counting outsourcing have less people on a project than third party...

There's a big difference between outsourcing/overseeing elements to other companies and outsourcing development of entire versions, even in how it effects the internal dev (or publisher). Sony FP might outsource to the same vendors for elements, but Tomb Raider for instance and a decent amount of third party projects outsource entire development of specific platforms. Even worse when it's not after the fact, but active development for concurrent release.

What that achieves is ensuring that your core studio (or publisher) has to bloat up in administrative and organizational capacities to accommodate the level of communication and facilitation to make it feasible for other dev houses requirements to actually dev those other versions for you during active development on top of paying for all the 'redundancy' that comes with outsourcing full production because those other dev houses need a lot of the same people managerial you do, organizationally speaking, not just more manpower (which is what you're after when outsourcing). This is likely why Shadow cost as much as it did.
 
Last edited:

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
I would guess comparable. Insomniac is larger, but they have some small projects that would eat up the difference, and development time seems to be in about the same ballpark.

Mind, these budgets actually are a lot smaller than what you see with some of the behemoth 500-1000+ person teams third parties throw out there. It's just that I think a lot of people have the perception that big first party games are $40-$50 million while big third party ones are $75-$100 million, but the top of that scale has more so shifted to $75-$100 million for the former and like $100-$200 million for the latter.

That's not to say things don't go down quite a bit below that with something like Detroit or Prey as well, but I just wanted to contextualize that Tomb Raider isn't exorbitantly expensive for what they delivered these days.

Those estimations are partly based on past figures provided by the developers themselves though (eg for Uncharted 2 and 3), then re-calculated for the now larger sized teams and/or dev times. Granted Uncharted 4 would have been a lot more expensive, but there's a lot of factors that might really switch up cost variables. For example, I'm not sure if SIE rent their office spaces and believe they may have actually bought the land and built the new studios outright (eg the new 85,000 sq ft space in Playa Vista among others). I'm not sure if they factor that cost in to the development of an individual game itself, since it's more of a long term acquisition and appreciating asset. The running costs are probably no where near as high as said rent would have been otherwise.

Regarding pay, I don't know if Uncharted 4 had 200 people working on it the entire time, presumably there were fewer developers earlier in the studios life, and some of that 200 also worked on other stuff intermittently, but according to Pay scale (no idea how accurate it is), Naughty Dog's average salary is $68,567, which over 3 years for 200 people works out to roughly $41m. After that it's a case of adding in the cost of operations, software, hardware, electricity, health benefits and so on, just as you previously mentioned, but not sure how much that stuff would even come to.
 

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
Those estimations are partly based on past figures provided by the developers themselves though (eg for Uncharted 2 and 3), then re-calculated for the now larger sized teams and/or dev times. Granted Uncharted 4 would have been a lot more expensive, but there's a lot of factors that might really switch up cost variables. For example, I'm not sure if SIE rent their office spaces and believe they may have actually bought the land and built the new studios outright (eg the new 85,000 sq ft space in Playa Vista among others). I'm not sure if they factor that cost in to the development of an individual game itself, since it's more of a long term acquisition and appreciating asset. The running costs are probably no where near as high as said rent would have been otherwise.

Regarding pay, I don't know if Uncharted 4 had 200 people working on it the entire time, presumably there were fewer developers earlier in the studios life, and some of that 200 also worked on other stuff intermittently, but according to Pay scale (no idea how accurate it is), Naughty Dog's average salary is $68,567, which over 3 years for 200 people works out to roughly $41m. After that it's a case of adding in the cost of operations, software, hardware, electricity, health benefits and so on, just as you previously mentioned, but not sure how much that stuff would even come to.
The $10,000 a month comes from Kotaku, with Obsidian and several other developers sharing it as a standard: https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-cost-so-much-to-make-1818508211

Visceral, which is in a more expensive location and at a AAA publisher, was closer to $16,000 a month on average: https://kotaku.com/the-collapse-of-viscerals-ambitious-star-wars-game-1819916152

I'd expect things like building ownership to shift it more back toward the $10,000 than below it given you'd expect a studio of their stature and location to cost more than your average studio.

I do suspect the actual consistent team size for Uncharted 4 may have been 200 given that Naughty Dog currently has 431 employees on LinkedIn alone, which isn't going to catch every employee, so a lot of the other things they handle (ICE Team, ongoing support, HR/office workers/etc) would presumably fall under staff that's not the core dev team of a game like Uncharted 4.
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
The $10,000 a month comes from Kotaku, with Obsidian and several other developers sharing it as a standard: https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-cost-so-much-to-make-1818508211

Visceral, which is in a more expensive location and at a AAA publisher, was closer to $16,000 a month on average: https://kotaku.com/the-collapse-of-viscerals-ambitious-star-wars-game-1819916152

I'd expect things like building ownership to shift it more back toward the $10,000 than below it.

I do suspect the actual consistent team size for Uncharted 4 may have been 200 given that Naughty Dog currently has 431 employees on LinkedIn alone, which isn't going to catch every employee, so a lot of the other things they handle (ICE Team, ongoing support, HR/office workers/etc) would presumably fall under staff that's not the core dev team of a game like Uncharted 4.

Of course I appreciate that, but of those factors included in that summation in the Kotaku article for example, office rent is going to be one of the most costly aspects (outside of salaries), and if a company owns the property outright instead of having to pay rent, that adds a slightly different dynamic to how costs might be calculated.

I have no idea what the rental yield is in Santa Monica, but here in the UK in places like London, the rental yield is around 6%, and it can actually be higher for many commercial premises (as much as 10% in places, so 10 years worth of rent would equal the freehold value of the property). That means that if a company has the means and can forsee using a particular piece of property for a prolonged period of time, they're often far better off just buying the building outright, as oppose to renting, that way it's not only paid for itself in X number of years in terms of rent savings, but they have a potentially appreciating asset and permanent worthwhile investment too (since in future the premises could and likely would be worth many more times what they paid for it).

But again, I have no idea how that would be factored in to development cost analysis over ordinary rent.

Guessing certain companies that have a more global presence, thousands of employees, dozens of properties etc, get some ace deals on things like company wide health insurance, building insurance, services etc too, which probably further reduces their operating costs comparative to certain other studios.

Crazy that Visceral was as costly as it was per employee though. Now EA shuttering them makes a bit more sense.
 
Last edited: