Naughty Dog Founder: Selling to Sony 'Was the Right Call' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 05 January 2025 / 1,855 Views
Naughty Dog co-founder Andrew Gavin in a post on LinkedIn (via VideoGamesChronicle) doesn't regret selling the studio to Sony as it meant resources to make the best possible games.
"In the early 80s games cost less than $50,000 each to make," said Gavin. "By the time we got to Jak and Daxter, the budget busted the $15 million mark.
"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."
Naughty Dog last month announced Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet for the PlayStation 5. It is directed by Neil Druckmann and has been in development since 2020.
The studio was founded in 1984 and was acquired by Sony in 2001.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Games cost however much you want them to cost. Right now, there are two guys sharing an apartment, crafting the next indie masterpiece, and I can assure you, it will not cost anything near fifteen-million dollars.
So, out of general interest, I looked up this article/interview ended up in a weird sea of the same thing being said a number of times at different sources. I was curious to see how much he sold ND for (couldn't find it). Anyway, this article (as well as VGCs) abbreviates and focuses on their earlier budgets vs later ones which is fine. Another article on Eurogamer mentioned how it went from 50k to 1.5mil for Crash, not the 15mil for Jak but what is shocking to me more is the cost of Jak 3.
In the linked in article (which is this btw, the link above doesn't work https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrew-gavin-441765_why-did-we-sell-naughty-dog-its-a-question-activity-7277011334121058305-JZKz/ ) he mentions how cost of that was 40-50mil. So a game which should have been using already existing resources somehow tripled in costs? According to articles I found Uncharted 2 cost £20mil. What happened with Jak 3?
This is exactly what I was thinking about. We also know that average 6th gen AAA budget usually clocked in under 5 million. The 20 million a pop for the Uncharted series might be just the development cost, minus advertisement and distribution, but still, the price difference is massive.
Jak 1 cost $14 million.
Jak 2 cost $15 million.
Jak 3 cost $10 million and was developed in half the time.
https://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-big-video-game-1501413649
The added "cost" was likely due to advertising/licensing.
Going from 5th gen to 6th gen we had additional motion capture costs... 6th gen to 7th gen brought facial motion capture costs.
We are at the point where games need quality actors to deliver a story and world these days, hence the ballooning costs. (Outside of R&D and graphics.)
And of course inflation. $15 million in 2001 is equivalent to about $30 million today in freedom dollars.
In saying that, Naughty Dog has been one of Sonys largest shining beacons that helped make Playstation one of the most important pillars in gaming.
Thanks for this sum-up. That makes perfect sense! Also, this article is a real treasure-trove :D
Thanks, added licencing and advertising makes sense. Going back to the articles I found, most for Uncharted mention (not including advertising).
I would think that costs in the last decade or so have gone up massively for sure, it was just that difference between Jak 3 and Uncharted one that seemed odd.
You'd think in time, certain things would help decrease costs, more automation, engines getting more user friendly etc but demand for high quality games (not necessarily graphically) means other things rise is costs too, as you mention, you need mo cap, actors, sound team, experts in all platforms you are making it for. Compare Crash 1 credits to Crash 4 on mobygames as an example.
You can still make a really really good game for $15 million dollars easily enough.
But a quality AAA game, it would be impossible.
Some aspects in the world of graphics has decreased costs... Dynamic lighting and shadows shifted the burden from artists "baking" those details into the texture work, it's now handled by the game engine dynamically in real time... Rather than have artists spend months doing those art-passes.
Tessellation reduced the burden on 3D modelling as you can use that function to add extra geometric detail to meshes.
We are also past the point where a developer makes their own game engine and even their own programming language... Jak and Daxter being a prime example.
It's easier to licence Unreal.
The biggest costs are actually marketing and quality staff for 5+ years.
The average salary of a video game developer is $108,000 USD.
Average sized team for a AAA game these days is probably around the 300~ mark.
Average development time of 4 years...
...That's a budgeted cost of almost $130~ million alone just for staff over the lifetime of the project.
That's before we get professional actors, voice actors, network engineers, tools and equipment (Computers, render farms, motion capo devices, photogrammetry scanners) and more.
Throw in 10's of millions for advertising... Yeah it's expensive.
Essay Pro