Money.
I don’t even have to read the article.
Naughty Dog Co-Founder Reveals Why They Were Acquired By Sony
Submitted 3 months ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
Comments
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 3 months ago
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
Because AAA games cost more to make than blockbuster movies.
They take more art than a blockbuster movie, they take more script than a blockbuster movie, they take more motion capture than a blockbuster movie (except maybe the Avatar series which are basically all-CGI/motion capture), just everything is so much more than what you need in a film plus the need for compelling gameplay with a satisfying ludonarrative.
The massive amounts of capital needed to make one to begin with literally preclude studios that aim for this style of game from doing anything but submitting to large publishers who will finance them. Because the resources required to make that type of game are just that much.
It’s part of why Larian did Early Access for BG3 so they could make money during the development to help lengthen their runway and lower their burn rate. They still had to cut a huge amount and just release as-is. The Upper City got cut entirely as did the return to Avernus and with it Karlach’s actual happy ending, all of her current canon endings are technically fail-states for her storyline.
simple@lemm.ee 3 months ago
FYI Naughty Dog was acquired by Sony in 2001, this was before extremely expensive AAA games.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Larian also sold 30% to Tencent because they needed more money. Games can get super expensive quick.
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
They’ve also been one of the drivers of ballooning AAA costs, because everyone has to compete at the level of The Last of Us
ech@lemm.ee 3 months ago
In most cases, acquisition seems to work out poorly for indie studios, but ND has certainly made good use of Sony’s resources while they’ve been there. I’m just glad I get to play their games finally.
SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
This is one of those acquisitions that has been net positive for the industry. ND used that capital to push their games to the limit.
catloaf@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Money (to stay in business, not for personal gain). Saved you a click.
cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Image
Copernican@lemmy.world 3 months ago
What’s the difference? You want to stay in business to make money personally for what you build.
Allero@lemmy.today 3 months ago
True; however, the point raised is probably about the claim made in the article that ND would not keep up with rising costs of AAA game development on its own.
So, according to co-founder, it was not a case of a successful company pumping in even more revenue, but rather ensuring its very survival. At the time, plenty of even large indie companies have closed, so this is somewhat believable.