All Channels
Popular
170°

Game Budgets Should Always Be Public

We now know how much The Last of Us Part 2 and Horizon Forbidden West cost, but that information shouldn't be secret anyway.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
__SteakDeck__1066d ago

I agree. It’s one of the things I like about Hollywood, compared to the games industry.

Flawlessmic1066d ago

I mean I'd defs love to know how much each game cost to make and how much money it made back.

But I disagree with the writer whole heartedly, while it would be nice for discussions sake they are under no obligation to tell us any of that info.

They don't owe that info to anyone outside of need to know basis so it's bit ridiculous to say that it should be public info.

__SteakDeck__1066d ago

@Flawlessmic Yeah idk why I got downvoted. This is the transparency that we should want in the industry. I agree that they shouldn’t be obligated to tell us. It would be nice to know though. What I really want to know, is how much games make.

gold_drake1066d ago

this is off topic, but i love the way u edited your post. intended or not xD

ChickenOfTheCaveMan1066d ago

Movie budgets are not public, it's estimates, rumors and industry leaks. They're never the actual numbers.

Godmars2901066d ago

And rank and file devs should be treated and paid fairly, yet aren't.

BrainSyphoned1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

I think rank and file devs are rank and should be working as geek squad instead of doing shit work and complaining about how special it was.

"OMG my cubicle was so scary during covid, booohooohoooo, I need combat pay and a raise for the nothing I helped my company release."

neomahi1066d ago

THIS IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS IVE HEARD THIS WEEK. WHY? Developers have no accountability to you. They're not a government entity. You don't pay taxes to them and, honestly, it's none of your business you nosey s.o.b.! What a bunch of KEVINS. The ONLY sense this argument would make, would be null-and-void because Kickstarter already makes sure that base is covered. That could be your ONLY right to know. The only exception I heard of this and it would've made sense is in the case of KINGDOM OF AMULAER on the PS3/360 where the government of Rhode Island (or one of the New England states, but I'm almost certain it was Rhode Island) actually funded a game to help the studio. THAT would absolutely need to be reported because that would be the citizens of Rhode Island's tax dollars fronting that project, you would absolutely have the right to know but, these development studios owe you nothing. What am absolute LEFT kind of a statement and expectation. Entitled dumbasshats..... Gosh, a bunch of friggin Kevin's. Right when you think you might be able to buy into the future of humanity, someone opens their fat sucker and spouts off garbage like this. Ergh.....

Duke191066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

Not ONCE when I was enjoying my play through of TLOU or Horizon did I think: man, this would be so much better if I knew how much this cost to make or how much money it made!

Gaming fanboys’ fascination around profitability and cost is so comical because well more than half the people reading this shit have zero idea what they are even looking at with it.

SullysCigar1066d ago

You just pulled facts from your arse to push your preferred narrative.

I'm not too concerned about game budgets, beyond a passing interest - and I don't think we really need to know - but sales and profit definitely matter. That takes it beyond 'passing interest' territory and starts to indicate the likelihood of a sequel. I am concerned about that, particularly if I really enjoyed the game.

Duke191066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

You're right - its way closer to 100% of the folks on sites like this who would have ZERO ability to properly react to the little information they are presented with. All they want to do is compare "big number to little number".

You cant look at a reported dollar value and then suddenly think you know anything about the chances of a sequel coming. So thank you for proving my point

EvertonFC1066d ago

"That takes it beyond 'passing interest' territory and starts to indicate the likelihood of a sequel"

Good point regarding whether a game gets a sequel ie; "Days Gone"

SullysCigar1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

^ @Duke19, so you literally just agreed you were talking crap in your OG comment and then proceeded to make up more crap to double down on your assumption, while at the same time ignoring my words. Sales and profitability are a good indication that a game has succeeded for the developer. This will increase the likelihood of a sequel being greenlit.

I never claimed it was the sole deciding factor, because it plainly isn't, I'm just trying to help you to understand why some of us find this information interesting. I disagree with the article, however, that devs should feel compelled to share budget data. Sales, critical and consumer acclaim, engagement and profitability are all information we are more accustomed to, and I'm fine with that as a high-level indicator as to the likely appetite to produce a sequel.

EDIT: @EvertonFC, exactly - good example. Days Gone was pulled apart by critics, consumers jumped on the bandwagon (there were legitimate technical issues for a few weeks) and early sales floundered as a result. Over time it was patched and became a much-loved game, but Sony was put off by the game's reception even before the devs put forward some dodgy ideas for a sequel.

BrainSyphoned1066d ago

I'm not interested in extra excuses for lootboxes to be publicly available.

Show all comments (26)
70°

Naughty Dog Was Reportedly Divided On Joel's Controversial Fate During Development Of TLOU Part 2

Naughty Dog was reportedly divided on the controversial fate of Joel in The Last of Us Part 2 during the game's development.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
SimpleDad37d ago

NO, that can't be... No! I can't... Really?/s

Cacabunga37d ago

They for sure chose the worst way to deal with it

-Foxtrot35d ago

Funny considering Bruce left half way through development and now we get told there was an internal conflict with the story direction.

Makes you think…

HectixRose37d ago

I think it was good decision, if he was still alive, he would have been a mascot just like Kratos, drake and many others. These old dudes gotta die for new characters to take center stage with their own storyline. They keep dragging the emotional baggage into many sequels and eventually the story just turns into absolute shit show.

JEECE37d ago

It was ironic because people complained heavily about the story in the Uncharted games not having sufficient stakes because all the key characters always survived, despite the dangerous situations they were always in. Then ND killed a character in a more serious series and everyone lost their minds. Just shows that people don't always really want the thing they say they want.

CantThinkOfAUsername36d ago

I thought the more common complaint about Uncharted franchise was how the main cast are the good guys acting so nonchalantly while killing hundreds in cold blood (aka the dissonance between gameplay and story cutscenes). They just did it again in Part II.

Soy37d ago

Didn't have to kill him. Just have them part ways or Joel can "retire," whatever.

DarXyde36d ago

I don't think he would necessarily need to become a mascot (and besides, technically, I'd say Ellie is... So regardless, someone was going to be).

From a narrative perspective, I do think it has a similar effect to Ricky dying in Boyz N Da Hood: very likeable character, and you're really motivated to see the get back—in this case, it's more intense because it's an interactive experience. Most people hated Abby, but I get what they were after with portraying the cycle of violence and revenge—unfortunately, the game appears to want to take the side of the bad people.

But I will say that if Joel survived, it does become harder to tell an interesting story. What COULD have happened is an exploration into the rift between Joel and Ellie after the trolley dilemma events of the first game. It could have been interesting to see Abby out for revenge at the same time Ellie hated Joel.

Ashunderfire8636d ago

Sorry just had to say this lol! RICKYYYY!

Man Cuba Gooding Jr was miscast in that movie, but that part was cringey it was sad and funny at the same time man.

Ashunderfire8636d ago (Edited 36d ago )

I understand but the way they went about killing Joel, was poorly executed. Even the show of the Last of Us games tried to improved it, but it was just as bad. Well at least Joel got to know the reason why he had to die, before the death happened in the show. That part gave us the full context, but the game just let it happen with no pay off.

Joel death should have been a midway thing through the story, so we at least get to play him a little more with Ellie. Abby didn’t need to be this Hulk looking woman, but more like the show Abby which is a beater idea in my opinion.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 36d ago
InUrFoxHole37d ago

The only ND game that was so disappointing to me I couldn't finish it.

pwnmaster300037d ago

Honestly as much as I loved the game, they could have just not killed him off.
I get it creator vision and all but killing a character that made you millions is just wrong imo. At least have him go down fighting.

Show all comments (25)
50°

Ex-Naughty Dog Dev: Big Studios Are 'Forced' to Hire Like Factories

Former Naughty Dog artist Gabriel Betancourt explains why the "sweet spot" for game teams is under 200 people and how AAA "factories" kill creativity.

Read Full Story >>
powerupgaming.co.uk
45d ago
phongtro123_com44d ago

There’s definitely some truth to this. When teams get too large, coordination starts to outweigh creativity—layers of approval, risk aversion, and tight deadlines can turn bold ideas into “safe” ones. Keeping a team under ~200 people sounds ideal for maintaining clear communication and a shared vision. That said, massive AAA projects also come with huge technical demands and expectations, so scaling up isn’t always avoidable. The real challenge is figuring out how to keep that small-team creativity alive inside big studio structures.

DarXyde44d ago

More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.

I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.

A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.

30°

The Last Of Us Part 2 Remastered Multiplayer Mod Is Currently In Development For PC

A multiplayer mod is currently in development for the PC version of Sony and Naughty Dog's The Last of Us Part 2 Remastered.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com