Major Publishers Report AAA Games Can Cost Over a Billion to Make

A report released alongside the CMA's decision to block the Microsoft Activision Blizzard acquisition reveals the demanding costs behind modern AAA game development, which can surpass $1 billion per game.

[isarai]

Correction, marketing can cost over a billion. I get that AAA development is very expensive but the narrative they push is BS and only used to try to justify their greed like microtransactions and shipping unfinished games. The VAST majority of the budget is used in marketing, it's not even comparable. They act as if tool sets haven't advanced in 20yrs to make things far more accessible and streamlined. And I bet they are inflating that number with things like the cost of R&D who's production covers all games coming out of the studio.

[frostypants]

Exactly. The actual programmers and artists sure as hell aren't getting that much. Too much is spent on marketing to push otherwise mediocre games. Maybe actually DO spend that money on development and see what happens...maybe they won't need to spend so much effort on convincing the public to swallow a turd.

[wiz7191]

The average gamer developer can make between $64K all the up to $127k , the depends on a few factors though .. then AAA studios have thousands of employees , seems like a lot of money to me. Then that’s yearly , games these days takes a few years to complete.

https://www.zippia.com/game...

Let’s do that math at the minimal level .. let’s say all developers are making the minimal $64K times that by 1,000 then times that by 2 (for 2 years) that’s $128M on developers salaries alone on a small scale. The $1B wouldn’t seem to far fetched.

[isarai]

@wiz

All employees are not all active during development. You don't need prop modelers and texture artists when you're just prototyping, you don't need writers when you polishing, etc etc. At certain stages, certain departments are rarely needed so they work on other projects in the mean time

[Strange99]

Ever seen the credits on a triple A game? Even if they got paid minimum wage, 10 of those 1000 people would cost (10x $30k = 300k). Add in people making 6 figures and a few making millions and… yea, even without marketing your in the half billion territory.

[wiz7191]

@Isarai even if their not working on one particular project and the team is split working on two different they still have to get paid regardless ..

[sinspirit]

@above

Not true at all.

Most AAA games don't even break 100 million in dev costs. The biggest AAA games might reach 150 million. Most AAA games still go closer towards the 80 million numbers.

.. and the major factor is full time employee costs per project. *Certain* games might have like 1,000 devs credited but only a few hundred were employed year round for a couple years. Most were only contracted work for a few weeks time and probably while working on multiple developer projects depending on the kind of job. You also don't need to compare the mega AAA studios to make a point. AAA has a start and it's not in the hundreds of millions, let alone a billion or higher. Insane marketing tactics is always what ends up making AAA game costs seem insane. And, certain game companies known for bad studio management and money wasting have openly advertised how exlensive their games are to make when they heavily spent more than the game dev costs on marketing alone when the game itself was not so good.

[neutralgamer1992]

Agreed 75-100 million for the actual development and whatever else they spend on marketing. Publishers tend to combine both costs into one

GTA5 cost R* total of $250 million for developing and marketing at the time(I am sure they have spent more on marketing since then launching the game for newer consoles and GTA Online)

Sequels are cheaper to make especially yearly releases. COD use to hire celebrities to advertise so I am sure that was costing them

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Billion in marketing not in actual creation. Because if we had the latter omfg the quantity and care these will have would be amazing.

[Geoff900]

If you had the latter, it'd make no difference to quality, the cost of something doesn't mean it's going to be better.

Currently, the main reason games are costing more in the first place is they are trying to release games within 2-3 years, the teams are much bigger to fulfil that quota.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

I have a wonderful idea. Let's give away first party games that cost a billion each to make, all away for a low monthly fee upon release!

[Knushwood Butt]

And let's not advertise them.

[esherwood]

If it makes sense to them I’m good with it

[IamTylerDurden1]

What single game reached a bil in pure development? Even MMOs i find hard to believe. Ludicrous. Like these Destiny/Halo half a bil myths and that's HALF.

If ANY game actually hit even half a bil then they messed up. Unless it's laying a huge long term infrastructure and developing tech.

[senorfartcushion]

Destiny’s development was $500 million for ten years worth of games including dlc.

They’re just lying,

Now the issue here is that the mainstream games media sites are going to report this as fact and the conversation will be viewed this way only for the next decade, or at least until another company says it’s $2 billion or $3 billion.

If games cost that much to make then the execs behind the games wouldn’t be having such hefty paydays.

[Crows90]

And the media wants to push the narrative that $70 games make sense.

[senorfartcushion]

True.

Games have increased in price multiple times over the last few years but the argument was that they were and leading this argument were magazine sites and influencers who all… get their games for free.

[Hofstaderman]

I think we need to scale back. I get it that the industry has grown to be bigger than movies but if it’s not reigned in it will collapse in on itself. Back when gaming was more niche and when we had simpler architecture consoles developers were free to experiment and we got such a wide variety of highly rated games some of which even hold up today . Development time was quicker, gameplay was there and costs even for that period was bearable. And no please don’t say that this is the current Indie market, the big companies were pushing out belters in the 90s and early 2000s. Truly the golden age. These days because development is so bloated and expensive games have to sell tens of millions to break even and everybody is expecting cutting edge graphics driving development costs up. The model is unsustainable and something has to give. Perhaps Moores Law of diminishing returns may act as a buffer.

[Einhander1971]

Totally agree!! The way things are going the industry could crash. Some are just to stupid to see it.

[senorfartcushion]

They’re just lying lol

[aaronaton]

Only terrible games cost that much money, like Halo and Starfield for instance.

[Workshyskiver]

I take it Starfield became terrible as soon as it was announced that it wasn't releasing on Playstation?

[senorfartcushion]

No game has ever cost a billion to make.

[Zhipp]

Even Halo didn't cost that much. That 500mil rumor was completely unsubstantiated. And we have no idea on the budget for Starfield, nor the quality as no one has played the game yet.

[Northpoint]

Then stop paying the CEO so much.

[senorfartcushion]

If games really cost a billion to make the CEO’s would be getting less. It’s just a false statement made to justify all of the unnecessary price hikes we’ve been subject to.

[S2Killinit]

IGN…

[senorfartcushion]

Who will repeat this until everyone in San Francisco thinks it’s the truth.

It will then remain the truth until games go higher in price again and another dev/exec tries to justify it by saying their game costs $2 billion to develop.

[Elda]

I don't believe that. Several million...even a couple of hundred million but not a billion. I think a billion is stretching the truth.

[senorfartcushion]

Control cost $30 million at the time.

It’s a lie.

[Yi-Long]

Well, they shouldn’t. We’re not asking for AAA-games on billion-dollar budgets with expensive Hollywood rosters of actors doing mo-cap performances and soundtracks by world-renowned composers, in games which will take months or even years to fully explore and finish.

Give us games like Splinter Cell Blacklist, or Uncharted 2, or Ninja Gaiden Black, which were focused AAA experiences in fantastic closed-off locations, and knew exactly what kind of games they were and what they wanted to give us.

Give me a proper sequel to SSX3. THAT, to me, would be an AAA-release, and it wouldn’t need to be expensive or overly ambitious or innovative. It just needs to be SSX3, in a new gorgeous, location, with a few new characters. That’s all.

Give me a new Prince of Persia. It doesn’t need to be a huge open world set in a realistic old Syria/Iraq. It can be just like Sand of Time or the 2008 game, just with new stages and current-gen graphics of course.

Give me a Project Gotham Racing 5, or a new Power Stone, whatever. Drop the 8-10 year development-cycles. We don’t want a Beyond Good and Evil 2 that’s some kind of huge never-ending live-service in an open hub world which is always online. We wanted a Beyond Good and Evil 2 which was just a natural SP follow-up to the first one, just a bit bigger & better. That’s it.

These suits in charge are dreaming about scoring out-of-stadium homeruns through ridiculousn OTT ambitious and out-of-touch projects, while instead they should just focus on a healthy barrage of consistently good-great games.

Keep it simple, stupid.

[senorfartcushion]

Control cost $30 million to make. It’s a lie

[Felix_Argyle_Catbro]

The article is talking about franchises, as in multiple games. Not individual games.

[Einhander1971]

That's the trouble the industry is in, bigger demands and expectations from gamers. Results in bigger and bigger budgets and development time. The consumer is to blame, and most are forever moaning about 60fps, 4k, bleeding edge visuals. No wonder the industry is in this situation. Unfortunately we need more patience when we keep demanding more each gen. I know I'll get the down votes but that's my opinion!!

[1nsomniac]

Rubbish. Stop allowing these people to lie to you. Call them out!

[TheEnigma313]

Yeah whatever. If it costs that much why does sone games still come unfinished? Still not buying a game for $70.

[senorfartcushion]

My ass

[Gwiz]

That's an even worse picture and not a great way to convince that a game releases in a subpar state.

[gold_drake]

in Marketing sure
but game development itself .. i very much doubt that haha thats ridiculous like

[Crows90]

Nah. They choose to spend that money. If they could make great games back in N64 days they can still do the same today around a similar price point.

These companies choose to spend a ridiculous amount.

[Flewid638]

Indie devs making AAA games:
"Hold my beer..."

[esherwood]

I bet there’s a ton of bloat that’s found its way into AAA studios like diversity training and god knows what else

[Binarycode]

a billion my ass.

Stop using top actors for gaming roles for starters. It's pointless. Give unknowns a try. Use a well known engine and hire the right ppl. If a game is good it'll sell itself.

[anast]

If they games are billion, why do most hem suck? It it were me, I would take that long look in the 'ol mirror. Cut back on marketing expenses.

[enkiduxiv]

You know what didn’t cost a billion dollars to make. Elden Ring, Sekiro, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3…

You know why? Because at the end of the day, you don’t have to have the best graphics in biz if your art direction and game design are good.

You also don’t need to pay Norman Reedus and Keanu Reeves to fully mo-cap npcs. You just need to hire a writer who can actually write.

It’s always nice to see the big players fall flat on their face. Money can’t buy everything I guess.

[Deathdeliverer]

How about they just stop doing call of duty annually and actually give it time to get new ideas?

[PhillyDonJawn]

Seem like AAA games are becoming harder to make. With hardware becoming more powerful to push games to higher levels. Development has been longer in return. Just look at R* for example. Devs either take all gen to release a full product that pushes next gen to the present (RDR2). release half arsed with only the single player (TLOU2)
Release buggy or with modes missing at launch and update post release (Halo infinite) where do you draw the line? As a gamer I want all the things I fell in love with but I do understand the added difficulty that didn't exist back then. It's like you gotta settle for single player only, reduced graphics/performance, or wait the entire generation. It's ridiculous.

[DaniMacYo]

Oh no! Wow really?!? Man now I feel bad I’ll just buy a shit tone of crap MT to help with the cost. It’s the least I can do. EHHHH!!!! Not even, these rich ass studio trying to guilt trip people into buying into their terrible business practices called MT. They make billions and more with those dumb sales.

[EternalTitan]

Worthless corporate lies.
Valheim and Undertale says hi.

[Ristul]

Is that why the gaming indusry has been overtaking music, sports and film? Yeah, poor AAA studios, can't be easy.

[phoenixwing]

It can cost any amount depending how stupid management is with their spending. This isn't some excuse for making us pay more for over marketed crap is it?

[WelkinCole]

I call bull.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

i mean, i have fun with dynasty warriors still, and that sure as hell didn't take a billion to make lol these companies claim it costs so much but where's the quality? other than a very small handful of devs/companies, there's nothing to show for all this extra spending. they could spend a trillion on cod and it'd still be the same thing as last year.