Support NeoGAF

[James Sawyer Ford]

God of War Ragnarok Reportedly Cost $200 Million to Make

According to Sony's Shuhei Yoshida, God of War Ragnarok cost Santa Monica Studios more than four times the amount of money spent on making God of War III.

www.glitched.online

Sony’s latest blockbuster, God of War Ragnarok cost Santa Monica Studios a reported $200 million to make. In a report from The Guardian, Shuhei Yoshida chatted about the game’s development, the industry and other topics.

During the interview, Yoshida discussed how things have changed in the industry. Mainly related to the development costs of making a game. He says back in the day, 25 years ago, games would cost a few million dollars. 2010’s God of War III only cost Sony $44 million and it was an expensive game for its time.

God of War Ragnarok, on the other hand, cost Sony more than four times that amount at $200 million. Yoshida says these costs will continue to rise as the years go by and games get bigger and more ambitious.

Keep in mind that Yoshida doesn’t specifically mention the God of War Ragnarok’s budget in the interview. However, he does say that “PlayStation 5 games, such as God of War Ragnarok“. This gives us the idea that the game’s budget was sitting in that ballpark figure.

This is about what I stated previously, but many people said there's no way it could have cost that amount.

 

[lh032]

thats scary, this means we will get less new IP since the risk is higher

 

[feynoob]

Plus this info too
https://www.xfire.com/aaa-games-cost-over-billion/

Sony, MS and other companies can't keep up with cost of these AAA games as time goes on. It will increase a lot.

there is also the timeline of these AAA games. The longer you make these games, the higher the budget.

 

[Three]

For anybody wondering it has sold 11M copies. Even at $60 that would be $660M.
The game was great too.

 

[feynoob]

thats scary, this means we will get less new IP since the risk is higher

We will, plus more live service games in order to recoup some budget cost.

For anybody wondering it has sold 11M copies. Even at $60 that would be $660M.
The game was great too.

The issue is that not every game will hit that mark. Any below 5m sales in first year and you are seeing some red flags on your budget.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Still crazy to me how “cheap” games are.
Most blockbuster movies cost 200+ million to make and are under 3 hours, oftentimes horrible writing and plot, and don’t even look as impressive as games do sometimes. We’re pretty lucky - game devs work for cheap

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

Most of that money doesn't even go into the actual development of AAA games.

It's mainly used for aggressive marketing campaigns and in hiring expensive actors.

A lot of assets are mainly outsourced these days.

 

[[Sigma]]

Bloat. A lot of unnecessary stuff was done. People getting paid that shouldn't have been paid.

 

[freefornow]

http://[URL]https://www.glitched.online/god-of-war-ragnarok-reportedly-cost-200-million-to-make/

[/URL]



This is about what I stated previously, but many people said there's no way it could have cost that amount.

Wonder if Marketing/Promotion costs are on top of that?

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

200 Million for this fucking stinker? Christ what did they spend it all on? Clearly it wasn't quality writing or pacing.

Why would that affect on its budget? Lmao

 

[feynoob]

Still crazy to me how “cheap” games are.
Most blockbuster movies cost 200+ million to make and are under 3 hours, oftentimes horrible writing and plot, and don’t even look as impressive as games do sometimes. We’re pretty lucky - game devs work for cheap

Movies take 1-2 year, while games take 3-7 years.
Movies also see their returns faster, unlike games. But downside is that movie see higher losses unlike games.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Movies take 1-2 year, while games take 3-7 years.
Movies also see their returns faster, unlike games. But downside is that movie see higher losses unlike games.

See that’s even crazier to me - game devs must have low salaries if that $200 million is spread over 4+ years. Like Pixar movies cost $200 million and game development I would think is much harder - sometime they have to have an animated movie within itself (MGS4, Final Fantasy). Video game returns can be insane though - GTA, Skyrim being re released over and over whereas the highest grossing film being around $2.7 billion (thinking Avatar) cost $400 million to make. GTA V must’ve been done insanely well with the online microtransactions too. I don’t blame Take Two for not wanting to kill it

 

[Edmund]

I hope Sony won't put this game on psn extra. Don't condition your fans to not buy games.

 

[Yoboman]

Most of that money doesn't even go into the actual development of AAA games.

It's mainly used for aggressive marketing campaigns and in hiring expensive actors.

A lot of assets are mainly outsourced these days.

Truth

Marketing costs continue increasing exponentially

 

[SlimySnake]

God of War Ragnarok Reportedly Cost $200 Million to Make

According to Sony's Shuhei Yoshida, God of War Ragnarok cost Santa Monica Studios more than four times the amount of money spent on making God of War III.

www.glitched.online

This is about what I stated previously, but many people said there's no way it could have cost that amount.

Here is the main Guardian article. This number doesnt come from Yoshida.

Things have become more difficult for game developers in the 25+ years that Yoshida has been working in the industry. Development costs have skyrocketed: 2010’s God of War III, an extremely expensive game for its time, cost $44m to make. Modern PlayStation 5 games, such as God of War: Ragnarok can cost around $200m. At the other end of the scale, independent developers are coming out with better games on smaller budgets, meaning getting noticed is harder.

The face of PlayStation: Shuhei Yoshida on the joy and future of video games

He’s been at PlayStation since the beginning, and seen the games industry transform beyond recognition. He talks unlikely successes, AI, and gaming’s future

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jonnie_Darko]

Well some of the assets and animations where recycled from the previous game isn it?

 

[Aenima]

It shows, great production values. Also the game was very polished at launch. Even had an entire 5+ hours optional zone that looked like a paid DLC.

 

[Yoboman]

Well some of the assets and animations where recycled from the previous game isn it?

Not really, even the areas that were in the first game are nothing alike. And it has about 5 times the areas

 

[Hugare]

You can see all that money in terms of production value, but they really should have trimmed the game's fat by a lot

Its bloated af. 2018 was a masterpiece in storytelling and pacing, but Ragnarok has so many unnecessary story segments.

Funny, seems like just 2018 had TLOU as a huge inspiration, they looked at Part II huge length and said "yeah, lets do that".

Didnt work for them, imo.

Game didnt need to be that expensive or big to tell the story they wanted to tell

 

[Alesimage]

200 Million for this fucking stinker? Christ what did they spend it all on? Clearly it wasn't quality writing or pacing.

Still waiting for something new. All these endless sequels are burning me out.

 

[Punished Miku]

Well some of the assets and animations where recycled from the previous game isn it?

65% of the game is recycled. Combat. Animations, moves, character models. The game is gigantic though. Also most people complained about a lack of marketing. Only really started close to release. The game is obviously dripping with money and has phenomenal polish and production values.

If thats what it takes to reign it in at 200 mill, I'm cool with AA and a bit of jank. Polished games are obviously great but the budget seems crazy for a direct sequel. They definitely made it back this time though. That's the gamble.

 

[K' Dash]

Trying too hard.

I mean, it’s not the way to say it, but he’s not wrong.

 

[ByWatterson]

Worth every penny.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You can see all that money in terms of production value, but they really should have trimmed the game's fat by a lot

Its bloated af. 2018 was a masterpiece in storytelling and pacing, but Ragnarok has so many unnecessary story segments.

Funny, seems like just 2018 had TLOU as a huge inspiration, they looked at Part II huge length and said "yeah, lets do that".

Didnt work for them, imo.

Game didnt need to be that expensive or big to tell the story they wanted to tell

I think this is a good point. But I fear that some devs think if you only have a 15-20 hour game you’re less likely to reach the upper echelon of 15-20M sales

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Did it make money?

 

[Shubh_C63]

Usually Anime's first season supposedly is high budget affair to stand out from the crowd and then gets shifted to another studio for lower budget and subpar works.

Gaming industry works the opposite way where they have to up their game again and again which is such a risky affair. But also gaming industry wouldn't need shiny stuff if they could innovate in gameplay and story consistently. Wouldn't mind to two stick figures fighting in a DOOM gameplay if story has style, substance and balls to say something like Deus Ex maybe.

Every time Sony drops a banger I thank the gods they exist. Can you imagine Apple or Google doing these risky affairs compared to consistent and safe quarterly earnings. Same goes for Microsoft somewhat.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Did it make money?

I would think so - $48 average return to Sony at 11 million copies sold would be 528 million.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

I would think so - $48 average return to Sony at 11 million copies sold would be 528 million.

Then who gives a shit how much it costs?

 

[El Muerto]

Ugh couldnt get into Ragnarok, 2018 was good but the new one was just bad. They should give us a spin off. Something fun without all the cutscenes and open world. Develop it with a lower budget that looks plays like the older games. It would perform well like Hi-Fi Rush.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

1. Avatar (2009) - $2.79 billion (budget: $237 million)
2. Titanic (1997) - $2.19 billion (budget: $200 million)
3. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) - $2.07 billion (budget: $245 million)
4. Avengers: Infinity War (2018) - $2.05 billion (budget: $316-400 million)
5. Jurassic World (2015) - $1.67 billion (budget: $150 million)
6. The Lion King (2019) - $1.65 billion (budget: $260 million)
7. The Avengers (2012) - $1.52 billion (budget: $220 million)
8. Furious 7 (2015) - $1.52 billion (budget: $190-250 million)
9. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) - $1.40 billion (budget: $365-495 million)
10. Black Panther (2018) - $1.34 billion (budget: $200-210 million)

t

 

[BennyBlanco]

I wonder what GTA6’s budget is

 

[Hugare]

I think this is a good point. But I fear that some devs think if you only have a 15-20 hour game you’re less likely to reach the upper echelon of 15-20M sales

They had GOW 2018 as proof that they could make a game that has half the length of Ragnarok and still be successful

But a huge epic was expected from Ragnarok. They just werent able to do it properly. 30h+ campaign for that story that they wanted to tell was just too much.

I didnt buy the game expecting 10 minutes of Ragnarok at the end of the game, thats for sure

 

[Kokoloko85]

And it sold a whole bunch and made loads of profit. All while scoring 94 on Metacritic.

How much have games like Horizon, GoT, Starfield, RE8 and Halo Infinite cost in comparison.

I love AAA 1st party games, just wish we got some of the smaller games from the PS3 and early PS4 era like Locoroco, Tokyo Jungle, Gravity Rush and SOTC

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

They had GOW 2018 as proof that they could make a game that has half the length of Ragnarok and still be successful

But a huge epic was expected from Ragnarok. They just werent able to do it properly. 30h+ campaign for that story that they wanted to tell was just too much.

I didnt buy the game expecting 10 minutes of Ragnarok at the end of the game, thats for sure

I could be wrong but I thought Ragnarok was only maybe 33% longer. It does have a lot more side content though

 

[Robbinhood]

Nah, just telling the truth. God of War 2018 was great. Ragnarok was a step back in almost every way.

True, except for combat. And graphics. And puzzles. And environments. And boss battles. Oh and enemy variety. Otherwise agreed 100%

 

[FullMetalx117]

1. Avatar (2009) - $2.79 billion (budget: $237 million)
2. Titanic (1997) - $2.19 billion (budget: $200 million)
3. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) - $2.07 billion (budget: $245 million)
4. Avengers: Infinity War (2018) - $2.05 billion (budget: $316-400 million)
5. Jurassic World (2015) - $1.67 billion (budget: $150 million)
6. The Lion King (2019) - $1.65 billion (budget: $260 million)
7. The Avengers (2012) - $1.52 billion (budget: $220 million)
8. Furious 7 (2015) - $1.52 billion (budget: $190-250 million)
9. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) - $1.40 billion (budget: $365-495 million)
10. Black Panther (2018) - $1.34 billion (budget: $200-210 million)

t

Awesome list, we need to make one for games too. Usually for box office the general rule is the multiplier needs to be 2-3x budget (some say more than 3x) to make a profit since the cut of the studio is like 70% domestic and way less in China/international

 

[bitbydeath]

Half of that was probably marketing.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Half of that was probably marketing.

This is just for dev budget based on the referenced numbers

 

[bitbydeath]

This is just for dev budget based on the referenced numbers

Marketing is generally inclusive, here’s another.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Awesome list, we need to make one for games too. Usually for box office the general rule is the multiplier needs to be 2-3x to make a profit since the cut of the studio is like 70% domestic and way less in China/international

yes. for movies there is all that info. (there are YT channels that report them).

for games, we don't have such info. I think the margins are better for games to turn a profit.

 

[gothmog]

Plus this info too
https://www.xfire.com/aaa-games-cost-over-billion/

Sony, MS and other companies can't keep up with cost of these AAA games as time goes on. It will increase a lot.

there is also the timeline of these AAA games. The longer you make these games, the higher the budget.

Companies don't need to spend that kind of money to get AAA. Sony thought it was worth it for the sequel, and it paid off.

 

[ShadowLag]

Well, that probably puts it at the #1 most expensive spot on my top disappointments of all time list. Playstation has become very good at spending enourmous mountains of cash to ruin their franchises for me lately.

 

[bitbydeath]

More

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Far is the time of game made in a home garage.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Marketing is generally inclusive, here’s another.

GoW3 didn’t cost 44m inclusive of marketing

 

[SlimySnake]

65% of the game is recycled. Combat. Animations, moves, character models. The game is gigantic though. Also most people complained about a lack of marketing. Only really started close to release. The game is obviously dripping with money and has phenomenal polish and production values.

If thats what it takes to reign it in at 200 mill, I'm cool with AA and a bit of jank. Polished games are obviously great but the budget seems crazy for a direct sequel. They definitely made it back this time though. That's the gamble.

Horizon cost $100 million. For this game to cost double that is nonsense. GG did so much more to improve the visuals and production values which is where most of the budget is supposed to go. Horizon also took 6 months more in development in a studio twice the size of GG.

If it indeed cost $200 million to make then Sony should shut that studio down because someone in that studio is embezzling money.

If there is no fraud then reign in your stupid developers. We dont need six different hub worlds that all do the same shit. They shouldve just made Vanaheim and Crater, and called it a day. Two copy pasta Alfheim worlds, the same Midgard and svarthalfheim nonsense lifted straight out of the the last game. Who asked for this? The game is 50 hour game. It wouldve sold the same as a 30 hour game that was made in 3 years like Star Wars. And what a phenomenal game Star Wars is. Feels fresh in ways Ragnorak just didnt despite being a straight sequel just like Ragnorak.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Horizon cost $100 million.

FW?

Santa Monica >>>>> Amsterdam in terms of costs

 

[feynoob]

Companies don't need to spend that kind of money to get AAA. Sony thought it was worth it for the sequel, and it paid off.

This is the future that you are looking.
Marketing and other budgets will increase as time goes on.

 

[Touch fuzZy. get BizZay]

Hmm well that was a very "hollywood" game. Tonally it even felt like a marvel movie post disney. I imagine AAA titles that don't have such long walk n' talk segments would cost vastly less while still selling like AAA

 

[bitbydeath]

GoW3 didn’t cost 44m inclusive of marketing

Probably not, Sony barely did any marketing back then.