-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Not sustainable": Developers across the industry react to The Last of Us Part 2's $220 million budget
- Thread starter Spyxos
- Start date
LimanimaPT
Member
300 people for 5 years to develop a video game? This is pure madness.
th4tguy
Member
It’s only sustainable as long as the profit margins work.
You can fund 20 indie games for 22mil but will they have the same or better profit margins?
These big games come out and are still green lit because they still make a boat load of money and sell hardware and subs. The same can hardly be said about indie games.
You can fund 20 indie games for 22mil but will they have the same or better profit margins?
These big games come out and are still green lit because they still make a boat load of money and sell hardware and subs. The same can hardly be said about indie games.
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
Then they wouldn't be indie anymore since they'd be funded/published by a publisher... Yes, Minecraft stopped being indie ages ago.
Miyazaki’s Slave
Gold Member
Sorry to burst your bubble but almost EVERYTHING that is made (everywhere and in every industry) has crunch of some form.
I don't know what your intention for this post was and I very well may be incorrectly interrupting your messages intent but crunch has existed for the entirety of human existence.
But to answer your question....it would have cost the same adjusted for time*
Last edited:
LavitzSlambert
Member
Wow, there’s a lot of people in this thread completely dismissing these concerns without considering some important points.
1. Time to develop. Games take longer to create, with bigger budgets. That means even if the game is wildly successful, those profits need to sustain the dev through the 5+ year cycle of that game, AND the next game. And if there is a flop in the middle of all that, you are looking at potentially a 10 year path back to profitability and missing an entire generation without a hit game to win your fans back. Many younger gamers would only know you as the dev who, or not even know you at all. That’s an uphill battle back to profitability.
2. Interest rates. We are no longer in the fantasy world of free money. Companies aren’t financing all of their activities with cash, they have a finance department whose goal is to fund their short and long term goals. This means a lot of borrowing for these big budget games, especially considering the cost of developing an expensive AAA game for 5+ years. At higher interest rates over a long time period, that is a significant increase in spend - more than we have seen since the beginning of gaming’s HD era.
3. Third parties. So many people are dismissing the costs to develop these big hits because they’re only thinking about the largest, most successful of Sony’s established franchises. If you aren’t an enormous franchise like Call of Duty, you’re paying another 30% revenue for each and every copy sold to Sony for the privilege of releasing on their platform. Digital distribution and licensing is expensive. So as a first party dev you don’t pay a penny of these costs.
4. Buyouts and exclusivity agreements. The numbers work favorably for platform owners and as we have seen, this results in increasing industry consolidation. Devs need to be acquired to profit, or they reduce the scope of platforms they are releasing for and depend on exclusivity contracts for some money up front to reduce risk and narrow their focus. Why create a game for multiple platforms if it’s so risky to spend extra money, when you can be paid to do less work and release for one platform? Then if the game is a success and the exclusivity deal ends, you can slap together a port and cash in years later at full price on another platform.
Sure this is working for Sony and some of Sony’s biggest games. It might be sustainable (until it isn’t), but this absolutely is not sustainable for third party developers or for new dev studios and franchises unless they are making these deals. It’s also a concern if one platform maker gets too far ahead, they will hold a considerable amount of power and can squeeze dev teams even more to the point where we are predominantly seeing first party offerings of sequels and remakes. Something has to give, whether that is a change in business model, change in game size/scope, or advancements in technology (game engine’s processing power, etc) to reduce the time and cost to create games.
1. Time to develop. Games take longer to create, with bigger budgets. That means even if the game is wildly successful, those profits need to sustain the dev through the 5+ year cycle of that game, AND the next game. And if there is a flop in the middle of all that, you are looking at potentially a 10 year path back to profitability and missing an entire generation without a hit game to win your fans back. Many younger gamers would only know you as the dev who, or not even know you at all. That’s an uphill battle back to profitability.
2. Interest rates. We are no longer in the fantasy world of free money. Companies aren’t financing all of their activities with cash, they have a finance department whose goal is to fund their short and long term goals. This means a lot of borrowing for these big budget games, especially considering the cost of developing an expensive AAA game for 5+ years. At higher interest rates over a long time period, that is a significant increase in spend - more than we have seen since the beginning of gaming’s HD era.
3. Third parties. So many people are dismissing the costs to develop these big hits because they’re only thinking about the largest, most successful of Sony’s established franchises. If you aren’t an enormous franchise like Call of Duty, you’re paying another 30% revenue for each and every copy sold to Sony for the privilege of releasing on their platform. Digital distribution and licensing is expensive. So as a first party dev you don’t pay a penny of these costs.
4. Buyouts and exclusivity agreements. The numbers work favorably for platform owners and as we have seen, this results in increasing industry consolidation. Devs need to be acquired to profit, or they reduce the scope of platforms they are releasing for and depend on exclusivity contracts for some money up front to reduce risk and narrow their focus. Why create a game for multiple platforms if it’s so risky to spend extra money, when you can be paid to do less work and release for one platform? Then if the game is a success and the exclusivity deal ends, you can slap together a port and cash in years later at full price on another platform.
Sure this is working for Sony and some of Sony’s biggest games. It might be sustainable (until it isn’t), but this absolutely is not sustainable for third party developers or for new dev studios and franchises unless they are making these deals. It’s also a concern if one platform maker gets too far ahead, they will hold a considerable amount of power and can squeeze dev teams even more to the point where we are predominantly seeing first party offerings of sequels and remakes. Something has to give, whether that is a change in business model, change in game size/scope, or advancements in technology (game engine’s processing power, etc) to reduce the time and cost to create games.
AmuroChan
Member
It's also safer for Sony because they're the platform holder, meaning they get 100% of the profit.
N1tr0sOx1d3
Given another chance
If, could, should, would, may, may not, might, might not, maybe……
I don’t deal with hypothetical scenarios, I like facts! and the fact is Sony is making a bucket load of cash from their incredible AAA studios.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Days Gone is getting a movie or TV series? Huh?!
Wasn't this thread and topic started due to the dev cost of Sony 1st party games being leaked in court documents? Nobody was talking about 3rd party AAA games. Plus A.I. will help lower the cost of game dev in the future too.
rabbity-thing
Member
Is it supposed to be sustainable? This was a sequel to what many consider to be the best video game ever made. That's not a hyperbolic statement either. Last of Us, in the eyes of many, is the best video game to have ever been made. And it was being developed by what many consider to be the best dev in the business. Again, not a hyperbolic statement. Then, to cap things off, the bill is being paid by the game company that right now is most committed to releasing prestige titles to drive console sales.
So, unless you are a premiere dev working for a console maker on a sequel to the best game ever made, you can probably stop worrying about the precedent that was set.
So, unless you are a premiere dev working for a console maker on a sequel to the best game ever made, you can probably stop worrying about the precedent that was set.
GymWolf
Member
Puscifer
Member
No, but it's "safe" in the sense it ticks the metacritic boxes. Notice how you're talking story here, not the actual gameplay or pacing, which is a mess.
TropicanaTwista
Member
This is highly debatable. I prefer just gameplay alone out of pretty much any ND game compared to control and I did like control overall.
As for the actual topic, I don't understand the complaints. If it's making a profit, and not just a profit, these type of games seem to do REALLY well for Sony, than it is sustainable. Not every publisher/dev need to match. This industry has shown for pretty much ever that there is a bunch of room for different budget of games.
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
Should have picked an unsuccessful game before stepping on that soap box
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
The game sold 4mil at launch and cost $220mil and after 3 years it's at just over 10mil
for comparison as everyone points to it having a big budget, The Callisto Protocol cost $161mil and sold 2mil at launch and was considered a failure due to the high budget regardless of it would sell more later, current sales are unavailable.
While I think TLOU2 launch sales was good I would have thought it had sold more then 10mill after 3 years considered the budget.
for comparison as everyone points to it having a big budget, The Callisto Protocol cost $161mil and sold 2mil at launch and was considered a failure due to the high budget regardless of it would sell more later, current sales are unavailable.
While I think TLOU2 launch sales was good I would have thought it had sold more then 10mill after 3 years considered the budget.
Last edited:
Zok310
Banned
That's an exceptional game tho, literally nothing like it and it cost 1/4 a billion and have netted that company, books, comics, a possible film, a very good hbo tv show and 2 critically acclaimed games in 10 years.
That 200-300 million ( both games) have netted Sony over a billion dollars and a shit load of acclaim. Sony won that fight against that $200 million anyway you slice or dice it.
Edit;
Also if they get returns like that it means it is sustainable and a healthy investment for Sony. I guess these devs mean to say getting that kind of cash up front is unsustainable, i would agree.
That 200-300 million ( both games) have netted Sony over a billion dollars and a shit load of acclaim. Sony won that fight against that $200 million anyway you slice or dice it.
Edit;
Also if they get returns like that it means it is sustainable and a healthy investment for Sony. I guess these devs mean to say getting that kind of cash up front is unsustainable, i would agree.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The pacing is a mess, but the gameplay is top tier in TLOU2.
And they are literally console sellers for Sony. Hence why they make so much money from 3rd party games like Call of Duty.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
It’s not at all a far cry from that, it was very safe. And you conveniently ignored the more important part, bloated with nonsense. Which LoU II most definitely is. Easily the second biggest complaint with the game after the Joel/Abby whining is the length of the game
LavitzSlambert
Member
The court docs provided the info to launch the discussion but the context is broader. In fact most of the quotes and comments in the OP were from third parties. My whole point was bringing up factors that are being overlooked and that will affect all game devs, third party ones disproportionally. AI is not a panacea - no more than procedural generation and other fancy names for what amounts to automation of certain functions.
Shut0wen
Banned
Do we actually know if the game was profitable or did the voices in your head say it was? The game would have to make over 600 million to be considered profitable, thats including advertisement costs
I thought he meant 30 games for the full sum - for 1/10th - yea not happening.
Elog
Member
ND reported Spring of 2022 that TLoU2 had sold 10 million units by then. We know that the majority are digital unit sales. Already there you have the 600 MUSD in net revenue. Add to that the unit sales after that while the HBO show was running plus TV rights for the second HBO season plus the fact that it is a system pusher.
So yes, we know for a fact that TLoU2 has been highly profitable for Sony.
Edit: Reference - https://nordic.ign.com/the-last-of-...-of-us-part-2-has-sold-over-10-million-copies
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The Horizon series has been one of Sony's best system sellers. Like literally!!!
Sony has used it to literally sale three different types of new hardware.
Stare-Bear
Banned
Microsoft could make 350 x The Last Of Us games with the $70billion they are about to drop for Activision.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I can see putting that into Last of Us 2. Not so much Horizon FW.
It’s crazy how enormous these cinematic game budgets have gotten. A game that focuses purely on gameplay would need a small fraction of that.
It’s crazy how enormous these cinematic game budgets have gotten. A game that focuses purely on gameplay would need a small fraction of that.
Roni
Member
Gameplay is good too in my book, just not risky. Pacing is definitely risky too, considering how tied to the storyline it is.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Buying multiple publishers is also non sustainable for them. They will stop soon.
GymWolf
Member
Don't be like that, horizon also has A LOT of gameplay, huge variety of enemies, good variety of weapons in the sequel, etc.
It is cinematic but you can just roam the world and kill stuff and having 50 hours of pure gameplay without a single cinematic.
I hate this cinematic game bullshit narrative, less cinematic games have a fraction of the enemy quality in horizon where even the shittiest, smaller dinobots has 4 different moves, let alone the big ones.
I saw "gameplay centric"games with final bosses with less than 4 unique moves, like cmon...
The order and ryse were what you call cinematic games, tlou2 i guess is in between but the actual tps part play pretty well.
Last edited:
Trunx81
Member
I hate it to be fooled by YouTube videos, telling me "the franchise has a problem". Thanks for clarifying.
PaintTinJr
Member
Can't remember where I read it, but there was an official quote many years back that sequels cost half the amount of the first new IP game and the marketing costs for the first were near the same as the dev costs for a sequel.
Whether these games are directly profitable or not seems like a moot point if the industry absolutely needs these types of game advancements to push adoption of a next-gen console from its predecessor IMO.
Whether these games are directly profitable or not seems like a moot point if the industry absolutely needs these types of game advancements to push adoption of a next-gen console from its predecessor IMO.
semiconscious
Member
raimi ismail: 'everything was super cool'...
Lupin25
Member
He clearly never played it.
The encounters/gameplay segments are the best parts of the game, forget the long drawn cutscenes and 1/3 of the story.
The pacing feels bad, due to the narrative being double in length of the first for content purposes (after 4-6 yrs of waiting for release) The same thing Days Gone & GoW Ragnarök suffer from.
ARK1391
Member
Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up!
Puscifer
Member
What do you want? My trophies list? Purchase receipt? A vidoe of me logging into my PSN account, navigating to my collection and downloading with a sign with my gaf username?
There's a sect of y'all Sony clowns remind me of people back in 2004 when you said you didn't like passion of the Christ.
elcapitano
Member
Of course it's sustainable. The game was announced as in profit on day 1.
Dr_Ifto
Member
Lifetime wise, forbidden west may end up selling just as much or more than tlou2. 7mil in over a year vs 10 mil in 2 years. Both are solid sequels worth their budget.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
"nOt sUsTaInAbLe"
exputer.com
The Last Of Us Franchise Has Made Over A Billion Dollars In Revenue
As of November 2020, The Last of Us franchise has grossed a staggering $1 billion in revenue worldwide, according to a former PS developer.
exputer.com
Last edited:
T0minator
Member
What part of that is madness? The amount of people? The timeframe? That's just the norm with AAA games. It'll be funny to look back at comments like that years from now and realize how small those numbers are.
Getting 500+ teams working on multiple projects at the same time is where the industry is headed for those AAA games. 7yr projects with offset timeframes is the norm.
Team 1 of 250 ppl start dev in 2021 finish in 228
Team 2 of 250 ppl start development in 2023 finish in 2030
Multiple teams offset, Sonys been doing that for quite awhile now, not really madness considering the details and effort those teams put in and the results that get from that
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Sure, if Game Pass is our future it's not. And of course it's not sustainable for most studios period. But I still want those AAAA single player games, at least one every now and then, and I'm happy to pay €70 for them.