Gta vs cyberpunk

[BabaBooey88]

tldw; $850M+ vs $300M

Where do people get these numbers from?

I doubt for a single moment that RDR2 cost nearly a billion dollars. That is completely absurd. Even the 300M for cyberpunk is a stretch, though more believable considering the lincensing and hiring Keanu Reeves. IF we're to believe CDPR's statement that the expenses were covered at 8M pre-orders, that means their total expenditures did not exceed roughly 160M. The game would barely be profitable if they spent 300M, as it's only sold 13M copies when refunds are factored in... allegedly.

 

[Arcafonk]

The DeanBeat: How much did Red Dead Redemption 2 cost to make? (updated)

Is it possible that Rockstar Games spent $644 million to make its epic Wild West game, Red Dead Redemption 2? We've taken our guess.

venturebeat.com

(tells $644 + $300M marketting. $944M, some say more, some say less)

In any case, RDR2 profited from RDR, GTA 5 and GTA 4's technologies. RDR2 is also the result of the work of 2800 people.
CP77 profited from TW3 and TW2's techs. I don't know how many people worked on it.

Apples and black truffles to me.

 

[Dr. LaBrat]

Cdpr are a smalldev compared to rockstar who are the literal masters of the genre. We expected too much

there are third grade open world mobile games made in china that have better traffic AI than cyberpunk 2077. i think expecting traffic to try to drive past you when you stand still on the road is not expecting to much from a "AAA" dev that claims they want to make the best games in the world and compete with rockstar and bethesda

 

[GrimReaper801]

The DeanBeat: How much did Red Dead Redemption 2 cost to make? (updated)

Is it possible that Rockstar Games spent $644 million to make its epic Wild West game, Red Dead Redemption 2? We've taken our guess.

venturebeat.com

(tells $644 + $300M marketting. $944M, some say more, some say less)

In any case, RDR2 profited from RDR, GTA 5 and GTA 4's technologies. RDR2 is also the result of the work of 2800 people.
CP77 profited from TW3 and TW2's techs. I don't know how many people worked on it.

Apples and black truffles to me.

Yes, let's just ignore this very important bit which is right after the author's 644.2 million guesswork.

I am pretty sure that this is red-dead wrong

If you're going to use an article as proof of your claim, don't omit to mention even the writer indicates he's pretty sure he's completely wrong.

Also, "some say less" is right. Most say less and they say MUCH less. Most point to a development budget somewhere between 80 and 150 million + marketing. Usually for a combined budget of somewhere between 300 and 400 million. The truth is, Rockstar has never released accurate information about this and it's all guess work. Some say more? Please point to who says more because this 944 million is definitely the highest I've ever seen.

Had the game cost anywhere near 944+ million to produce and market, Rockstar wouldn't have said the game's sales exceeded their expectations when it sold for 725 million within it's first three days. When you release a product, it doesn't exceed your expectations until it, at the very least, recoup's the entirety of it's cost.

Especially compared to GTA5's one billion during the first three day, which is still their best selling game to this day. Also the best selling game of all time but that's another conversation.

Comparing the games isn't apples to oranges. Comparing Rockstar to CDPR is. The simple fact is Rockstar has been making these types of games for far longer and is just far more experienced than CDPR. They can accomplish far more with far less.

 

[Arcafonk]

Yes, let's just ignore this very important bit which is right after the author's 644.2 million guesswork.

The author calculated 7 years for 1000 x $100k/year (with tax I guess). There is still 2800 person that worked on that game, and hundred / thousands of licences of pro softwares to pay, electricity bills, offices, cameras, recording sessions (...) that he did not include in that count. This count is only salaries and tax.

For that $80M, it is not reasonable. $80M is 115 employees in mean, working on 7 years. "I think" you would agree "a little more" than 115 people worked on that game during those 7 years.
Even with a huge turnover, I don't know how would fit 2800 people working on that.

Also the best selling game of all time

Minecraft is #1, GTA 5 #2.

 

[GrimReaper801]

The author calculated 7 years for 1000 x $100k/year (with tax I guess). There is still 2800 person that worked on that game, and hundred / thousands of licences of pro softwares to pay, electricity bills, offices, cameras, recording sessions (...) that he did not include in that count.

2800 people worked on the game != 2800 people who worked full time on the game. There is no accurate number on those who did. Hence, guesswork. Something the author acknowledges.

The rest of what you mentioned are fixed costs. That's the cost of running their business, not creating a specific project. That's not what people or companies mean when they're talking about the cost of developing/marketing a specific project. The author didn't fail to include those because those are not specific to the project itself. Think about it for a second, in which project's budget do you throw in Camera #3 when you have people working on project X, project B and project T within the same building?

Furthermore, you think CP2077's 320 million budget included those? 1100+ employees, 3 different locations.

It did not.

Again the author himself indicates that he's making a big leap with that 100K

This count is only salaries and tax.

I'm getting the distinct impression you didn't actually read the article you quoted. You skimmed through it and only took from it what was fitting your narrative.

It's salary + employees health benefits that Rockstar pays. It's also making the big assumption that they all get health benefits.

The simple fact remains that even the author repeatedly indicates he's probably wrong and only providing guesswork. He says so multiple times throughout the article.

Minecraft is #1, GTA 5 #2.

You're right about that. I often forget Minecraft exists or that it's still surprisingly popular.

 

[Mentos3]

tldw; $850M+ vs $300M

a) CDPRs could have throw a few millions more in development instead marketing. Adverdisment Busses >> water-physics. Priorities.
b) I'm to lazy to hook on my PS4, to look how much hours I spend, but the "content" in RDR2 is in relation still much more.

 

[Arcafonk]

It's salary + employees health benefits that Rockstar pays.

Sure, but I live in Europe. Here, it is parts of taxes. You're nitpicking there I think.

Anyway, $80M in 7 years would still be next to 115 employee. Not 2800. And thinking "but it could be rotating", I totally agree with that, but that means rotating 24 times (roughly).
======> this means an employee work a mean of 3 monthes and a half on that project (7 years / 24).
======> it seems to be a little low.
So even with the amount of temp actors on that, "just" recording "hey put that gun away", say 416 (8x52) of them would just "eat" 8 years of the "805" (115 *7) man year of what this $80M budget buys. This gives the other 2400 a whooping 4 month on that project. 1 month to form them I guess => 2400 lost monthes, "best project management ever".
416 was not enough ? If you take 2/3 of those 2800, 1833 (let's round that to the closest multiple of 52 : 36x52 = 1872), then they "eat" 36 years. It gives 736 men years, giving those 1000 dudes less than 1 year on the project.
1833 1 week jobs was not enough ? Let's make the game with 100 dudes then : 2700 1 week jobs eat half the budget then you can program the whole RDR 2 with 100 dudes, staying there 3.5 years each.

The whole RDR2 with 2 teams of 50 dudes ?

$80M is fantasy. Any budget you're thinking is fantasy at that point.

And with a doubled budget, you'll get the same reasoning, but with 2 teams of 100 dudes staying 3.5 years.

I say they were "at least" 2 teams of 300 3.5 years dudes, more closer to 400. 2 teams of 300 people for 3.5 year each would cost $420M in salaries and taxes alone.
How does it even fits with your numbers ? You don't pay people ? Or you think RDR2 was a 50 dude job made in some kind of a big garage with one turnover + lots of 1 week jobs ?

 

[BabaBooey88]

Sure, but I live in Europe. Here, it is parts of taxes. You're nitpicking there I think.

Anyway, $80M in 7 years would still be next to 115 employee. Not 2800. And thinking "but it could be rotating", I agrre with that, but that means rotating 24 times (roughly).
======> this means an employee work a mean of 3 monthes and a half on that project.
======> I don't say this is unrealistic, but it seems to be a little low.
Given the amount of temp actors on that, "just" recording "hey put that gun away", say 416 of them would just "eat" 2 years of the "805" (115 *7) man year giving the other 2400 a whooping 4 month on that project.
416 was not enough ? If you take 2/3 of those 2800, 1833 (let's round that to the closest multiple of 52 : 36x52 = 1872), then they "eat" 36 years. It let's 736 men years, giving those 1000 dudes less than 1 year on the project.

$80M is fantasy.

Some dude said that, but what does that really mean? I'm not going to sit through the credits to pick it apart, but I'm a contractor. I get paid well, and charge by the day/hour. That being said, their costs for things like social security, insurance, software licenses, etc are all offset. This is for a free agent within the US; They could have rented out several studios in places like Malaysia and Mexico to get the grunt work done and then fix any fuckups, and there will be plenty, in house. If they have a long standing relationship with an asset house, they'll likely pay them better*they are flush with cash after all* and get them up to speed and quality so mishaps are less abundant. Anyway; sure, Rockstar could throw down nearly 1B for a game if they've projected the microsales from online will bring in incredible profits. I'm interested in seeing that data, but I just don't see them doing it when you figure the projected unit sales would just cover the costs.

 

[Arcafonk]

a) CDPRs could have throw a few millions more in development instead marketing. Adverdisment Busses >> water-physics. Priorities.
b) I'm to lazy to hook on my PS4, to look how much hours I spend, but the "content" in RDR2 is in relation still much more.

I would agree with a) but each month is millions of $. So there was a sweet spot to find I guess, and it must not be so far that the one we had.
Typically these are raises at the end of a project, when money is allready gone and budgetized before dev works, years away from the release. MOney isn't something you discover at the end to finish the job, you have to sell to find some at some point. Or make DLCs.

Post automatically merged: Feb 10, 2021

They could have rented out several studios in places like Malaysia and Mexico to get the grunt work done

They didn't. You don't see (many) malaysian names on that site. Lot's of Dan, Roberts and Brian there.

Projections were $725M under 6 monthes, and they knew it was at least a 2-year seller. They know how their games sells, esp when RDR2 is closest to GTA5 than Minecraft is.
Also, if RDR2 was a cash grabber, why don't you see many $1 hats DLC there. 36M copies worldwide would make think any selling departement of that.

Paying dev 100k a year is not an aberation in US. Last time I checked for my position, I would earn 100k a year in the US, and I don't know what US taxes are. Gaming dev would cost less, like in Europe, but you see, crunch overtime equalizes that (this, or them willing to teach new dudes one month for next to no output, and shitty spaghetti code due to rotations).
100k a dude including federal or state or whatever taxes pay compagnies in US is not fantasy. Thinking you can make a game like RDR2 wih 80M is fantasy (2x50 dudes for 3.5year, or 300 dudes teams even for 1 year each IS fantasy... Because of the scale of the project for option #1, and because you can't even pay the guys for the second option, on top of loosing 175 men year on teaching new guys on your 800 man years your $80M buys. Which would be sooooooooooo noob on project management for a compagny like R* that I do not even beleive it's possible, esp after the LA Noire fiasco.

 

[BabaBooey88]

They didn't. You don't see malaysian names on that site.

Alright.

 

[GrimReaper801]

-Snip-

I won't bother with much of an answer. All I'll say is, you're missing the point.

You're claiming the article as factual or even accurate when it's author himself indicates it is not. Multiple times. The simple fact remains that analysts who base their estimates from actual numbers from Rockstar/Take-Two place the combined (development+marketing) budget far lower than 644 million and even farther away from 944 million. Y'know, real numbers, not just guesswork which anyone can do.

Look at Michael Pachter's analysis at the end of your article.

“Parts of 1,000 employees worked on it, but not to the exclusion of all else. Take-Two’s capitalized software balance is $733 million; that’s the amount they’ve spent on all games that are under development but haven’t yet come out. That includes Borderlands, any new 2K games, some of the Private Division games, and all Rockstar games in development (Max Payne, LA Noire, Midnight Club, possibly Agent, Bully, Manhunt). No chance Red Dead Redemption 2 is 80 percent of the total, but it is likely 25 percent.”

I'll take the word of a well-known, although at times controversial, analyst who's been in this industry for decades over a gaming journalist's who's also been in this for decades but admits outright in that same article that all he's doing is guesswork.

 

[BabaBooey88]

Paying dev 100k a year is not an aberation in US. Last time I checked for my position, I would earn 100k a year in the US, and I don't know what US taxes are.

Yeah. I'm one of them. I said this already. That doesn't mean the game costs nearly a billion dollars. I'll accept that it very well could have as I really don't have any more interest in arguing whether it did or didn't. It certainly sold well enough in the end to justify the cost, so... ehh.

I don't accept that Cyberpunk cost 317M, though... unless that's another thing the top leadership is lying about. If so - wew lad, they didn't even clear 10% in profits and It's unlikely they'll make much more where things stand right now. Their, alleged, projections were 16M in sales, with the last updated figures standing at 13M. 16M is still a rather slim profit to take in on that much expenditure. MS and Sony go balls deep on marketing because their exclusives push console units, so a game barely clearing black is still a win for them.

 

[Arcafonk]

@GrimReaper801 LA Noire 2, sure, great analyst...................... And Bully 2 without the Brown bro ? Analysis at its best ?

 

[GrimReaper801]

I don't accept that Cyberpunk cost 317M, though... unless that's another thing the top leadership is lying about. If so - wew lad, they didn't even clear 10% in profits and It's unlikely they'll make much more where things stand right now. Their, alleged, projections were 16M in sales, with the last updated figures standing at 13M. 16M is still a rather slim profit to take in on that much expenditure. MS and Sony go balls deep on marketing because their exclusives push console units, so a game barely clearing black is still a win for them.

I doubt the 13M estimated sales figure still holds true.

That figure was from 10 days after release. The game then went through the Steam winter sale as #1 top seller. Dipped a few days to #2-3 but it always went back up. For about 4-5 weeks. Assuming that trend happened on every platform where the game was available, it would seem logical to assume they've sold many more copies.

Assuming the 13 million copies are still THE number. That's 780M in sales.

Even assuming a very conservative 30% seller's cut across the board, that's still 546M. Minus the 317 budget, 229M in pure profit.

Not a bad haul I'd say

We'll have a clearer picture once CDPR releases their numbers in March but until then, it's far from a failure.

@GrimReaper801 LA Noire 2, sure, great analyst......................

What?

Please indicate exactly where it says LA Noire 2 in the article.

 

[Arcafonk]

"and all Rockstar games in development (Max Payne, LA Noire, Midnight Club, possibly Agent, Bully, Manhunt) "
It's a port at best. And a PC one, on closest to PC architecture consoles ever. Say $5M tops for that (+ marketting).

TBH, PS4 to PS5 port are even automaticly made via Sony's tools, so what, you pay for QA and marketting and one dude pushing a button.

 

[GrimReaper801]

"and all Rockstar games in development (Max Payne, LA Noire, Midnight Club, possibly Agent, Bully, Manhunt) "

He's not talking about LA Noire 2.

EDIT: To answer your ninja edit, it's not about the port to PC. It's about the port to Switch, PS4 and Xbox one.

 

[Arcafonk]

On dying consoles ?

 

[BabaBooey88]

Assuming the 13 million copies are still THE number. That's 780M in sales.

Even assuming a very conservative 30% seller's cut across the board, that's still 546M. Minus the 317 budget, 229M in pure profit.

Not a bad haul I'd say

30% is not that conservative, it is pretty spot on. Of course they have their own digital distribution platform that I haven't factored in, but typical revenue figures are 10M for every 500k units shipped.

I didn't say it's a failure, just that I doubt 317M is accurate and the final quality of the game does not match that budget. If they really did and the typical rate holds true, then it kind of is a failure. At least by industry standards. They recouped their expenses and made some change so for me it's a win. They certainly made back enough to finish the game, they could have made even more had they finished it in the first place. Anyway; Let's say it is true, just for some gamer science lab shit. Rule of thumb is that you spend 2-4 times what your production budget is to really hit the big time.

CDPR does things on the cheap as much as possible and self-publishes though, even when we consider they went all out for this it's not likely they went as deep pockets as another studio would have attempting this. How much did they really spend on just the game? Outside of just running standard media blitz we have Keanu Reeves, Run The Jewels, A$AP Rocky, Grimes, music videos, etc... So, maybe the release quality does match the production budget?

 

[Arcafonk]

typical revenue figures are 10M for every 500k units shipped

CDPR are their own editors.

It's like T2 / R*, in that case you have CDPR / CDPR Red. There is no 30-50% to pay to editors there, only distrib (and a little part of it comes back with GOG).

Also, in France, I would cost 70k€ / year to my boss (in non-covid days, clients pays for me 10k€/month). In Poland, I think I would cost a Polish compagny €40-45k. In terms of salary, I think 2 polish dudes = 1 na guy. In terms of marketting though, it's $1 = $1.

Musicians are musicians. Some still does it for art, esp the ones you cited : they are not natives of showbiz, or kinds of posers. I couldn't see Grimes not being in that game (sidenote : I'm not into her music, but I stan for Caroline Polatchek in synthwave), I guess she have that kind of husband who is able to provide "about" anything she needs rigth now. So she can do whatever she wants with arts : I see her as "wanting" to do this. Why doing the Lizzy part otherwise, it could have been played by any polish cute girl instead, "and they are legions"

These are musicians that mainstream ppl don't know about. Being NA, they are costy, but not that much.

Other musicians, well, if you knew, these days... They could have had Justice, Kavinsky, Perturbator, Carpenter Brut (but NOT Daft Punk) for cheap I think (but sure, that would have been anticipated).

About Keanu, people often compares what he cost on a movie (which are 3-6 month job + promo) to what he made on CP. I don't see him immobilized on that project a lot of time though : he did not made dozens of TV for this, no world tour, and nobody knows how many time he was online on the set.