Source? Cause I was under the impression that their studios did a lot with the budget they were given
Over 2000 developers and 13 outsourcing studios worked on The Last of Us Part II
- Thread starter Raigor
- Start date
Source? Cause I was under the impression that their studios did a lot with the budget they were given
Yes. If a project is big enough companies will hire freelancers or bring on smaller studios to help out.
The title doesn't surprise me. To describe the level of detail as "obsessively meticulous" still doesn't quite reflect just how insane the details of this game's environmental art and level design are. The amount of effort such work required looks is so immense, I can't even wrap my head around it.
Fascinating numbers, thanks. I never thought I'd live to see the day where a Nintendo game had close to a thousand developers! Doesn't the whole company have less than 5k employees!?
It's amazing how many exclusive games Nintendo get out every year really and it's one of the major reason I don't think they're in a rush to increase specs to even PS4 level nevermind PS5!
Pretty sure they outsourced the hell out of botw. Metroid Prime 4 will have it too.
This is an important point. We've just seen one of MS's premier titles be ripped apart for not looking good enough not long after the release TLOU II.
The bar is constantly being raised and if a game has been in development for a few years it may be surpassed rather quickly.
Karonoth
I can imagine! Does that BotW number include the Monolithsoft folks?
I mean for Halo it's mostly for not looking like whay they showed at e3 2018. The one comparison people have done with part 2 is that one guy and Joel.
Though, that's because they're different games. If Halo had been built to be static and linear like TLOU2, they wouldn't have gone with realtime graphics (which is impressive in its own way) and could have baked in a lot more of the impressive visuals we expect for these flagship games. That said, yes either way, the escalation is immense. I think we should definitely be super impressed with the care and work that went into TLOU2. I don't think that should preclude us from worrying about the sustainability of AAA game development. Yes, there aren't many games like TLOU2 or RDR2, but just because you don't have 2000 developers doesn't mean you don't have a crazy expensive development.
And what a huge bet it is! TLOU2 was divisive as is (though, it sold well, so I expect it's fine for Naughty Dog), and it's not hard to imagine what even middling sales would have done to not just Naught Dog but to the entire first party infrastructure. It's a reminder that not every dev, even AAA devs, can take on the same scale or risk that ND or R* can. And we SHOULD NOT ask them to try.
Meh, but try telling gamers on the internet to temper their demands and expectations lol.
I mean are we talking specifically the story and boldness they went with that? I don't see any issues with people wanting to see more of that in aaa games, and now specifically because ND proved that ir can be done and be a success.
Not sure why you're conflating scale and (narrative) risk into this post since those have little to do with each other.
Demanding better stories isn't going to sink the AAA industry and suggesting otherwise is sad as hell. Also not sure what was risky about RDR2's story.
Before we even enter the possibility of "risky" storytelling for big games, there needs to be some kind of solid narrative foundation, and 95% of modern AAA games don't even come close to that.
I agree about the budget and scale, but most people know they shouldn't expect this amount of detail in the vast majority of games.
So, Sleeping Dogs had 120 developers. To make that game it costs 30million...
Man, how much will TLOU2 cost!???
Man, how much will TLOU2 cost!???
BoxManLocke
As for bold storytelling. I think there are plenty of indies that do fantastic things with story. Nothing holds AAAs from doing that, EXCEPT that the stakes are incredibly high. I think ND is exactly the proof of why most studios don't risk it. I agree that more AAA studios shouldn't shy away from uncomfortable topics or "politics". But, also not many studios can survive the shit that ND had to go through. And I'm not just talking about the harassment and abuse. I'm talking about the financial pressures that would have put on anyone else that didn't have the full backing of a 1st party dev and the obvious mandate to spend as much money as necessary. How many sales did ND lose because of all the stupid controversy? Did it matter for ND? Probably some, but not enough to overcome the undeniable quality of the game.
If we want more nuance or more boldness in our stories, then IMO we shouldn't want those studios to become 1000 person studios. That's the Ubi trap. You get too big, and then you can't afford to fail. And safe decisions (that even so, often don't pan out) are what we should expect from creators stuck in that space. I'd rather fund more small studios taking more risks in interesting ways, than try to put all that money into one big bet, expecting that they'll hit every mark along the way. Maybe a few a generation would be great. But not the norm.
(And to be extra clear: none of this is a criticism of ND or what they've done. Absolutely glad that they had the backing and the opportunity to run with this, and that they saw it through (with a lot of help).)
Edit: Sorry, guess I wasn't being clear. I was NOT talking about narrative decisions or storytelling. (I will make an argument below about why I do think scale and lack of bold storytelling CAN be related. But that's not my original point.) The "risk" is that completely unforeseen (in this case.. not unforeseeable) things have often come up and derailed games. Years of work undone by something as silly as a bad launch trailer or an unrelated scandal or someone saying the wrong thing. There's inherent risk with all projects, and, for most studios, that risk makes big bets hard - because pouring more money in is not a guarantee that issues will be resolved or that it will pay off in the end.
As for bold storytelling. I think there are plenty of indies that do fantastic things with story. Nothing holds AAAs from doing that, EXCEPT that the stakes are incredibly high. I think ND is exactly the proof of why most studios don't risk it. I agree that more AAA studios shouldn't shy away from uncomfortable topics or "politics". But, also not many studios can survive the shit that ND had to go through. And I'm not just talking about the harassment and abuse. I'm talking about the financial pressures that would have put on anyone else that didn't have the full backing of a 1st party dev and the obvious mandate to spend as much money as necessary. How many sales did ND lose because of all the stupid controversy? Did it matter for ND? Probably some, but not enough to overcome the undeniable quality of the game.
If we want more nuance or more boldness in our stories, then IMO we shouldn't want those studios to become 1000 person studios. That's the Ubi trap. You get too big, and then you can't afford to fail. And safe decisions (that even so, often don't pan out) are what we should expect from creators stuck in that space. I'd rather fund more small studios taking more risks in interesting ways, than try to put all that money into one big bet, expecting that they'll hit every mark along the way. Maybe a few a generation would be great. But not the norm.
(And to be extra clear: none of this is a criticism of ND or what they've done. Absolutely glad that they had the backing and the opportunity to run with this, and that they saw it through (with a lot of help).)
Last edited:
You are severely overestimating the divisiveness of the game. It's an extremely tiny percent. The game is 94 on MC, and the actual user score minus review bombs would be in the 80s. This isn't like 50% love, 50% hate. It's a mostly loved or liked game that is going to break sales records and win awards. It can be a game that shows that some other aaa devs can start doing more than the standard with stories.
Last edited:
This is why tech and power in a lot of ways takes a step back to things like this. No amount of power will give you the complete package a game like TLoU2 has for less effort. You can play the game for 10min and see the amount of intricate details in the characters, bespoke animations, sounds, environmental design etc. that elevates this game into something else. It's the same case with something like Red Dead 2. That's why these games are able to look so amazing on these super constrained old ass machines.
Sleeping Dogs has 900 developers credited. There may have only been 120 people at United Front but there are a lot of other people involved in the production and release of a game. Naughty Dog themselves are about 400-500 people.
Yea. Of course. ND pulled it off because the divisiveness didn't overcome the quality. They also had the manpower, the funding, and the time to make sure of that ratio (plus a whole lot of talented people). Most studios can't. Or we're talking already inflated AAA budgets... now multiplied?
I want what you want. But I'm not going to parlay that into expecting it of every dev just because ND could do it and they're all.. "AAA"...
Ubisoft could easily do more in the way of making more unique and better stories, and more progressiveness. Same with CDPR and a few other of the big ones. Not saying every single aaa game is going to be tlou part 2, but there can be steps and progress taken.
How does delaying something help it release sooner/before the end of the current gen? TLoU 2 released when it was ready, it's something Sony have always done, to where sometimes there'll be last gen exclusive (GoW 2 and GT6 comes to mind). There'll be cross-gen 1st party games from Sony too, so not sure why you think there's a plan to not do them, The Show being a very likely one, as will probably whatever not super far off VR games they have planned.
This post highlights what I suspect is a common misconception ITT.
All 2000 people were not involved in the project from beginning to end. Most of them will be working for a company that scored an e.g. asset contract to design all the mugs, cans and other kitchen items in the game. There will have been a time-limit on what they needed to make and when by, and then their involvement ends.
Outsourcing is really common across IT, be it enterprise or leisure software.
We really need some good, detailed threads on both the creative process in game design, but also the business side looking at project management and the role of producers, marketing (and why your great marketing plan to talk to Era users would be a disaster anywhere else) and so on.
Turns out it's high but not close to unprecedented for large AAA releases. I wouldn't be surprised if the next prestige AAA title, which I guess would be Halo infinite this fall or call of duty Cold War ends up at a similar number (maybe slightly smaller). If I recall correctly, the bigger new assassin's Creed games have 3000+, as does call of duty.
TLoU2s credits were soooo long lol. I think the most painful credits I've sat through since Gears 5s 15 minute credits ugh
No post credits scene either, should have just looked it up I guess
Last edited:
revolutionary is a bit hyperbolic. its great but it doesn't really do anything new
I think this is more of a problem than a good thing to be completely honest. It's indicative of ballooning video game development costs that are only going to choke the AAA gaming space further and further because there's a need to chase absurd detail and graphical fidelity. Sure, this is Sony writing blank checks like mad in attempt to to try and make a premiere title on their system, but again, the video game bubble cannot last is this is the kind of investment expected out of major releases.
With so many names and still numerous reports of intense crunch it really makes one (or at least me) think about how budgets are still not exactly realistic relative to release windows. The degree to which so many have to toil doesn't seem to gel with levels of executive compensation.
but by the same token there is exponentially more toil happening hardware side, so idk. Just bummed out now.
Good game
but by the same token there is exponentially more toil happening hardware side, so idk. Just bummed out now.
Good game
For aaa stories it definitely does, without getting into spoilers. Also revolutionary in its visuals and animations.
Lol. You'll never know if we meet in factions or not. :D
can MS hire some of that outsourced talent for a makeover for my main man Craig? (joke)
7k for Red Dead? that is a lot of overhead in terms of wages and bonuses. Im sure they made their money back but you can see why top tier AAA games can be risky proposition
I wonder if ND ramped up their outsoruce near the end of the project to help elivate working constraints brought on by Covid?
I can't obviously be sure but the way I understand game development, the late stages of the project are a lot about polish and stabilizing the code, and assembling all the different parts together. I don't think these things are or can be easily outsourced.
I doubt all 2000 people worked on this for 4 years straight.
I don't think so with COVID because the game was like basically done already right when it was ramping up in the US.
OP
OP
Not all 2000 devs worked for 4/5 years on the game and they are paid the same. The vast majority of the outsourcing companies are located in low income regions and they cost way less than ND devs in LA
OP
OP
I think around 100m give or take is a safe bet.
200m is way too much, that's only reserved for GTA and RDR.
Thats crazy .... So how do they maintain quality control? does every piece of art have to get thumbs upped by ND?
OP
OP
This is what happens.
Outsourcing studios can work on cutscenes, animations, set pieces, textures, assets, designing guns, enemies etc.... and everything has to be checked by Naughty Dog.
Lemon Sky did a lot of this in TLOU 2
