By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
shikamaru317 said:
DonFerrari said:

Didn't know the studio count of R* but yes to have all those dormant to just put additional content on GTAV doesn't please me even if I don't care much for their IPs.

I would like a Warrior remake though, I have no idea why but I didn't like Bully when I played it on PS2. LA Noire never tried, don't remember a thing about Max Payne and didn't play much Midgnight Club for arcade racing I was always more on NFS but my love is on sim so GT got most of my time.

But if you looked at the credits for RDR2 I think it had over 1000 people named.

EDIT - actually 3000 https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/23/18013928/red-dead-redemption-2-rockstar-games-public-letter

Alot of those are localization teams though. They also did a lot of contract work on RDR2, I think that 1600 actual Rockstar devs worked on the game at one point in time or another, but  I don’t think they ever said how many devs were on the main team that worked on the game for all 6 years of development. 

I personally think that Rockstar made a mistake making RDR2 the first true AAAA game. The scale is just too big, 6 years and 1600 devs, plus contract devs as well. It all feels unnecessarily large to me. RDR1 was made by 800 devs over 4 years by comparison, and is a better game in my personal opinion. I would much rather see R* go back to making AAA games rather than stay AAAA next gen. Say 800 devs and 4 years on future games in the two biggest IP, GTA and Red Dead. 300-500 devs and 3 years on the smaller IP like LA Noire, Bully, Midnight Club, and Max Payne. That would be ideal imo. But sadly it won’t happen.

I didn't play RDR1, but really liked RDR2 although wasn't my favourite and even with all the atention to detail I found games like GoW much more complete.

And sure teams of 300 dev is already enough to put about 1 AAA game every 3 to 5 years, so Rockstar could certainly improve their output, perhaps their problem is criativity and risk accepting?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."