Support NeoGAF

[LectureMaster]

Andrew Gavin on LinkedIn: Why did we sell Naughty Dog? It’s a question I’ve been asked countless… | 37 comments

Why did we sell Naughty Dog? It’s a question I’ve been asked countless times. The answer is simple: budgets were skyrocketing. When we started Naughty Dog in… | 37 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

---

Why did we sell Naughty Dog?

It’s a question I’ve been asked countless times. The answer is simple: budgets were skyrocketing.

When we started Naughty Dog in the 1980s, game development expenses were manageable. We bootstrapped everything, pouring profits from one game into the next.

- Our early 80s games cost less than $50,000 each to make.

- Rings of Power ('88-91), saw budgets rise to about $100,000, but yielded slightly more than that in after tax profits in 1992.

- In 1993, we rolled that $100k from Rings into a self funded Way of the Warrior.

- But Crash Bandicoot ('94-96) cost $1.6 million to make.

- By the time we got to Jak and Daxter ('99-01), the budget busted the $15 million mark.

By 2004, the cost of AAA games like Jak 3 had soared to $45-50 million -- and they have been rising ever since.

But back in 2000, we were still self-funding every project, and the stress of financing these ballooning budgets independently was enormous.

It wasn’t just us. This was (and still is) a systemic issue in the AAA space. Developers almost never have the resources to fund their own games, which gives publishers enormous leverage.

Selling to Sony wasn’t just about securing a financial future for Naughty Dog. It was about giving the studio the resources to keep making the best games possible, without being crushed by the weight of skyrocketing costs and the paralyzing fear that one slip would ruin it all.

Looking back, it was the right call.

AAA games have only gotten more expensive since then. Today's big budget games can easily cost $300, $400, or even $500 million to develop.

Would we have been able to keep up? Maybe. But selling -- to the right party -- gave Naughty Dog the stability it needed to thrive — and to continue making the kinds of games we’d always dreamed of!

---

 

[dreamstation]

Don't think I've ever played a game that good to justify those sort of numbers. It's absolutely ridiculous that one video game could cost up to half a billion dollars. Something has to change as this can't be sustainable surely.

 

[TintoConCasera]

Don't think I've ever played a game that good to justify those sort of numbers. It's absolutely ridiculous that one video game could cost up to half a billion dollars.

AAA companies are just way too big imo. Look at Ubisoft, 20K employees and all they are able to put out is slop. Expensive slop, which they have to fill with MTX because 70$ seems to not be enough.

Meanwhile way smaller studios like From or Larian put out way, way better games.

 

[Calverz]

And now it’s reaching the point where it’s no longer sustainable. People on here been saying this for years. And is why we are seeing less creativity and more and more licensed ip.

 

[kiphalfton]

VR games don't have great graphics... but what I will say is at least games are pushing the boundaries in regards to physics based stuff and interactivity.

Honestly surprised they're not more popular. But then again, maybe that's a good thing. When console gaming gained widespread appeal, it lost a lot of soul.

 

[LectureMaster]

 

[Dick Jones]

It's a Christmas miracle

 

[ResilientBanana]

Maybe, stop developing AAA and start developing fun, good games. Stop with the agendas and simply make a game that’s fun to play.

 

[Buggy Loop]

And now, even with graphic engines that have all the documentation shared across the globe, no longer need R&D nerds for inhouse engines, can outsource labor to cheap countries, temporal AA to smear everything into "ok" looking and run internally at half res, store assets, plugins already made...

They barely survive the modern costs

Every AAA studio is one failure away from closure.

 

[ManaByte]

It's a Christmas miracle

 

[RodriGames40]

45-50 million for a 2004 PS2 game...? Did I read that right? So much for games being cheaper before...

 

[DenchDeckard]

400 to 500 million for games is insane, man.

 

[Three]

45-50 million for a 2004 PS2 game...? Did I read that right? So much for games being cheaper before...

Compared to ten times that today, they were.

"AAA games have only gotten more expensive since then. Today's big budget games can easily cost $300, $400, or even $500 million to develop"

 

[RodriGames40]

Compared to ten times that today, they were.

"AAA games have only gotten more expensive since then. Today's big budget games can easily cost $300, $400, or even $500 million to develop"

Of course, but I went all my life believing games only hit the 40 million threshold after games like GOW3 or TLOU1... Now I am finding out a 2004 PS2 game somehow costed that, without 20 years of inflation to keep in mind.

 

[Moses85]

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Up towards $500 million and we can get games like Concord then trash sites want to cry about how many layoffs are happening in this industry

Things have to change, give me more Astrobot games

 

[CLW]

 

[Dr.Morris79]

He's here, look

He was just hiding.

 

[Holammer]

Same story every time a studio is sold.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

Nobody said anything about my bae Jordan

 

[PeteBull]

45-50 million for a 2004 PS2 game...? Did I read that right? So much for games being cheaper before...

List of most expensive video games to develop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Check how much FF7, that launched back in 1997 on psx costed, 40m usd to make, with at least another 40m for marketing, that is all in 1997 usd, so much more if u adjusted for inflation today ;D

 

[GermanZepp]

But Crash Bandicoot ('94-96) cost $1.6 million to make.

Wow, Crash cost more than reservoirs dogs. And Jack and Daxter double than Pulp Fiction. Lol

Ai is gonna fix this, how soon devs are gonna be able to apply those filters to sticks and bones puppets?

 

[RodriGames40]

List of most expensive video games to develop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Check how much FF7, that launched back in 1997 on psx costed, 40m usd to make, with at least another 40m for marketing, that is all in 1997 usd, so much more if u adjusted for inflation today ;D

Wow... I knew this story though I didn't know there were another 40 million for marketing, absolutely insane.

 

[RagnarokIV]

Because money and how many soy latte that money can buy

 

[hououinkyouma00]

AAA companies are just way too big imo. Look at Ubisoft, 20K employees and all they are able to put out is slop. Expensive slop, which they have to fill with MTX because 70$ seems to not be enough.

Meanwhile way smaller studios like From or Larian put out way, way better games.

Yeah, studios are way too big now. It sucks for the people who lose their jobs but these studios need to have huge layoffs.

A couple things need to be done to get things back to a more sustainable level:

• Studios need to be smaller. Look at Team Asobi for example as they are like 65 strong. Cut all of the bullshit positions filled by talentless people and focus more on dedicated devs who are truly talented.
• Scope needs to be smaller. Not every game needs to be as big as it is. Think of all the games with shit side quests which are really only there in order to pad out the game's length, or a game like God of War 2018 that is really twice as long as it should be. What is wrong with 15-20 hour games?
• Stop chasing open worlds in general. Open world makes sense for certain games but we get a lot of games that are open for no reason. A proper open world game takes longer and therefore takes more money to make.
• Graphics don't need to keep advancing. I'm going to get flak for this but PS4 level graphics are perfectly fine. It's cool to see these amazing graphics like Horizon Forbidden West but we don't need to be able to see the peach fuzz on characters faces. IMO there is no problem with games continuing to look like Uncharted 4 or other 8th gen games and I can't really think of a single gameplay oriented reason for graphics to advance much more then they have.

VR games don't have great graphics... but what I will say is at least games are pushing the boundaries in regards to physics based stuff and interactivity.

Honestly surprised they're not more popular. But then again, maybe that's a good thing. When console gaming gained widespread appeal, it lost a lot of soul.

The problem with VR is that it is a niche product that actually makes a lot of people sick or uncomfortable myself included.

The whole soul being lost when becoming mainstream really applies to everything though. Modern PC gaming is IMO soulless and a shadow of what it was in the 90s-mid late 2000s. Anime is also the same way as I think a lot of "soul" has been lost and overall we get way worse shows now. I'm not a comic book guy but I know a lot of people who don't enjoy stuff like Marvel as much as they used to because now it's this big huge thing that is now aimed at people who don't actually like comic books and it's simply a money machine. Console gaming really only started to lose its soul in the mid 8th generation IMO. Mid PS4 and XBO generation is where things started to go downhill for me.

 

[RodriGames40]

Graphics don't need to keep advancing. I'm going to get flak for this but PS4 level graphics are perfectly fine. It's cool to see these amazing graphics like Horizon Forbidden West but we don't need to be able to see the peach fuzz on characters faces. IMO there is no problem with games continuing to look like Uncharted 4 or other 8th gen games and I can't really think of a single gameplay oriented reason for graphics to advance much more then they have.

To be frank, at this point advocating for better graphics is actually one of the few possible solutions that are in the realm of us consumers. Baked graphics are expensive and take time, that progress isn't going to stop overnight in the software side either... Now, whether studios are willing to use the massive efficiency boost RT (soon to be pathtracing) gives to ship work faster rather than further increase ambition, that is another question.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I remind people this is the studio that made “uncharted” google it.

 

[PendekarRajawali]

Nowadays game developers filled with DEI activists not real talented people. Get rid of them.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

To be frank, at this point advocating for better graphics is actually one of the few possible solutions that are in the realm of us consumers. Baked graphics are expensive and take time, that progress isn't going to stop overnight in the software side either... Now, whether studios are willing to use the massive efficiency boost RT (soon to be pathtracing) gives to ship work faster rather than further increase ambition, that is another question.

I guess what I'm getting at is graphics for the sake of graphics that are going to add to dev times and in return budgets. Nobody needed to spend time on Aloy's peach fuzz and even if someone says well that only took like 1 week, that 1 week for that 1 thing adds up very quickly and it doesn't add anything to the game really.

Anything that actually just makes things easier/quicker for devs is fine, but I'm getting more at the fact that PS4 era games still look amazing especially at higher resolutions and frame rates and spending time to make sure that you see some like texture on a wall in the Intergalactic ship that's only visible when you pause and zoom in 800% is stupid.

 

[RodriGames40]

I guess what I'm getting at is graphics for the sake of graphics that are going to add to dev times and in return budgets. Nobody needed to spend time on Aloy's peach fuzz and even if someone says well that only took like 1 week, that 1 week for that 1 thing adds up very quickly and it doesn't add anything to the game really.

Anything that actually just makes things easier/quicker for devs is fine, but I'm getting more at the fact that PS4 era games still look amazing especially at higher resolutions and frame rates and spending time to make sure that you see some like texture on a wall in the Intergalactic ship that's only visible when you pause and zoom in 800% is stupid.

All these years have proven is that current AAA games are being legitimately bloated beyond belief, Aloy's peach fuzz is something that an employee actually had to code in and deemed important which is what you're getting at. Priorities in these studios are all over the place, going back in graphics at this point wouldn't change a single thing because all that content would still have to be coded in by someone... It is what systemic means after all.

 

[TintoConCasera]

A couple things need to be done to get things back to a more sustainable level:

100% agree with all your points, hope they get to turn into reality some day.

 

[The artful mincer]

45-50 million for a 2004 PS2 game...? Did I read that right? So much for games being cheaper before...

Yeah I'm not sure I believe that number honestly.

To quote Shaw laden game budget is basically studio size x time. Jak 3 only took a year to develop after jak 2 and Naughty Dog was obviously a much smaller studio back then.

A few games might have had a budget back then but I don't believe jak 3 was one of them.

 

[Hugare]

Maybe, stop developing AAA and start developing fun, good games. Stop with the agendas and simply make a game that’s fun to play.

Play indies or Nintendo stuff

Sony tried with Returnal, made a masterpiece in gameplay and it sold like shit.

There's a market for AAA cinematic games and thats where Sony is at. High budget high revenue (sometimes).

They might release something like Astro Bot now and then, but it wont sell like Nintendo games. Everyone knows it. Only Nintendo can get away with low budget/high revenue.

Besides, some devs really like cinematic AAA games and thats why they work for ND and etc.

 

[EN250]

"Jak 3 had soared to $45-50 million"

Excuse me? Are these development costs rising or just bad management? I can't see how that game would cost that much tbh

 

[hououinkyouma00]

All these years have proven is that current AAA games are being legitimately bloated beyond belief, Aloy's peach fuzz is something that an employee actually had to code in and deemed important which is what you're getting at. Priorities in these studios are all over the place, going back in graphics at this point wouldn't change a single thing because all that content would still have to be coded in by someone... It is what systemic means after all.

Yeah, a better word would have been streamlining. Focus on what's actually important and cut out all the filler. Which that singular sentence I guess could sum up all of my points as it all really came down to focusing and cutting just in different aspects.

 

[ResilientBanana]

Play indies or Nintendo stuff

Sony tried with Returnal, made a masterpiece in gameplay and it sold like shit.

There's a market for AAA cinematic games and thats where Sony is at. High budget high revenue (sometimes).

They might release something like Astro Bot now and then, but it wont sell like Nintendo games. Everyone knows it. Only Nintendo can get away with low budget/high revenue.

Besides, some devs really like cinematic AAA games and thats why they work for ND and etc.

Sure there is a place for AAA but not every game needs to be that. I personally do invest in a lot of indie games as of late and I do get a lot of use out of my switch. But the last AAA game I truly enjoyed was Doom Eternal or maybe the latest Mario. But Indie games bring me a lot of that old gaming joy. Helldivers 2, Killing Floor, Dead Cells, Icarus, etc have all been my games to play as of late.

 

[Agent X]

45-50 million for a 2004 PS2 game...? Did I read that right? So much for games being cheaper before...

That surprised me, too, at first. However, after thinking about it some more, it's believable.

I remember reading that Shenmue on Dreamcast (released a few years earlier) cost around $70 million to make. Also, PeteBull posted above that Final Fantasy VII (from 1997) had a $40 million development cost. With these examples in mind, $45-50 million for Jak 3 doesn't seem too farfetched after all.

And now it’s reaching the point where it’s no longer sustainable. People on here been saying this for years. And is why we are seeing less creativity and more and more licensed ip.

I think a lot of the "risky" creativity comes from smaller games from independent developers. It seems like most of the big games from long-standing publishers tend to use established IP and follow the same few boilerplate formats with little to no risks.

Going back to Naughty Dog, their early games (prior to Crash Bandicoot) were essentially indie productions, even though many of them were published by big publishers like Electronic Arts (who at that time operated very differently). Sony actually did an excellent job of nurturing Naughty Dog into the powerhouse studio that they are today (apart from too many remasters/remakes lately).

I'm interested in seeing how Intergalactic turns out in the end. It's refreshing to see something new from them.

Meanwhile, if you want to see where "the next Naughty Dog" will come from, keep an eye on some of the promising indie games out there. It's like the "circle of life". Many of the tired old AAA groups will fizzle out, while fresh new developers have the opportunity to rise to prominence and ultimately their place.

 

[Hugare]

Sure there is a place for AAA but not every game needs to be that. I personally do invest in a lot of indie games as of late and I do get a lot of use out of my switch. But the last AAA game I truly enjoyed was Doom Eternal or maybe the latest Mario. But Indie games bring me a lot of that old gaming joy.

No one is saying that every game needs to be that tho

But as fidelity goes up, you either go $500M AAAA or indie. Projects in between are scrutinized to hell and back, and some people ask why does game X doesnt look as good as TLOU Part II from 2024 or RDR II from 2018.

They dont understand that at the level of fidelity we are right now, some games wont be surpased anytime soon in terms of presentation cause a project like this needs tons of money, time and talent. Really hard to combine these 3.

I'm also playing a bunch of indies right now (making my way through Katana Zero), but I also get excited by stuff like Intergalatic or GTA VI

Big budget games need to exist as much as indies

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Game costs are ludicrous. I don't know how you manage to spend that much. The max shouldn't be more than 100 mil, for the top studios out there.

200 employees, making an average of $100,000 per year for 5 years is 100 mil. Not that a studio should have 200 employees or take 5 years to make a game...

 

[Crystal Winters]

you just ruined it. GG. I mean, I don't like the guy, but that is a benefit because I don't bring him up unless someone else does first.

 

[LimanimaPT]

This studios are way too big. Games are way too long, too many open world games with boring side quests.
Too many boring cut scenes, too many cinematic experiences. Cut the bullshit and develop shorter and more fun games. Cut in useless graphic details.
I ended Dead Space remake and I couldn't believe the end credits. An endless list of names. It had the option to scroll it 4 times the speed but they kept scrolling for minutes. Unvelievable.
Take From Software games. Minimal bullshit cut scenes. They are not needed in most games. They are just filler. I just want to take my sword and start slashing. If I want to watch cut scenes I'll go to the movies.

 

[digital_ghost]

It's a Christmas miracle

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Selling to Sony wasn’t just about securing a financial future for Naughty Dog. It was about giving the studio the resources to keep making the best games possible, without being crushed by the weight of skyrocketing costs and the paralyzing fear that one slip would ruin it all.

This is still the case, right? Studios have one misstep and the publishers shutter them.

 

[ReBurn]

Up towards $500 million and we can get games like Concord then trash sites want to cry about how many layoffs are happening in this industry

Things have to change, give me more Astrobot games

For sure. I don't need every first party game to be a cinematic masterpiece. I'd like to see more Astro Bot and Jak and Daxter types of games from first party studios.

 

[kazuyamishima]

They might release something like Astro Bot now and then, but it wont sell like Nintendo games. Everyone knows it. Only Nintendo can get away with low budget/high revenue.

Very well established Nintendo IP’s sell very well, and I don’t think the budget is peanuts like some people tend to say.

There are plenty of Nintendo projects that have done shit numbers.

We don’t have the final number for Returnal, only confirmation from Sony that they were pleased with the numbers.

 

[Jesb]

The industry is incredibly flawed and needs a reset. You do not need 500 employees and these ridiculous budgets.

 

[kevboard]

TLDR:

 

[genesisblock]

Don't think I've ever played a game that good to justify those sort of numbers. It's absolutely ridiculous that one video game could cost up to half a billion dollars. Something has to change as this can't be sustainable surely.

Upon seeing the output this gen. It's clear the high budget has less to do with AAA production and more of a talent mismanagement and bloat. Imagine, with that budget you can make the entire R* output for the PS3/360 era and has more features than your average modern day AAA game.

 

[Fahdis]

AI will considerably lower cost. I'm giving it 5 years max before we see individual/indie creators flourish. Fuck these large publishers.

 

[Paperboy]

It cost all this money to develop a game and then they still take a big risk by infusing their games with politics and adhering to lobbying groups who couldn't care less about video games. If it's all done to please investors why do one studio after another have to close down - wouldn't basically all of the development cost be covered by said investors..?