Saber Interactive Says AAA Game Development in North America Has Become Too Expensive
Saber Interactive may still keep its headquarters and publishing business in the United States, but the company’s game development footprint has shifted dramatically overseas. According to chief creative officer Tim Willits, Saber now has “no real development in North America anymore,” a move he says is driven by the soaring cost of producing AAA games in the region.
Willits argues that building large-scale games in North America has become financially risky for many studios. In his view, a major development team based there can spend more than $2 million every month just on operating costs and salaries. Over a typical five-year production cycle, that can reach roughly $120 million before adding marketing, publishing, distribution, and other expenses. Once those are included, the total investment can climb closer to $150 million.
For publishers and developers, that kind of budget creates enormous pressure. A game does not simply need to sell well; it often needs to become a massive global hit just to justify the cost. That reality has pushed some companies to rethink where and how games are made.
Saber’s approach is to spread development across several international studios. The company works with teams in Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Argentina, and Australia. Willits says the talent needed to create modern games is not limited to traditional North American development hubs such as California, where salaries, office space, and general operating expenses can make every project more expensive.
The company points to SnowRunner as an example of a more efficient production model. According to Willits, the game cost around $6 million to make and went on to generate hundreds of millions in revenue. That kind of return is increasingly rare in an industry where large budgets can make even successful games appear financially underwhelming.
Willits also referenced Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2, claiming it cost roughly one-third as much as a major North American production while selling 11 million more copies than the unnamed comparison title. His broader message is that lower development costs can give games a better chance to succeed without requiring unrealistic sales targets.
The argument highlights a growing divide in the video game industry. On one hand, tighter budgets and smaller, more focused productions can make game development more sustainable. AA games and mid-sized projects can take creative risks without needing blockbuster-level sales to survive. For studios, this can mean more flexibility, less financial pressure, and potentially stronger long-term stability.
On the other hand, shifting development away from North America raises difficult questions about wages and job locations. Lower costs do not always mean a studio has discovered a more efficient creative process. In some cases, it may simply mean equally skilled developers in other regions are being paid less than their North American counterparts.
Saber Interactive’s strategy appears to be working from a business perspective, especially as publishers search for ways to control ballooning game budgets. But Willits’ comments also point to a larger industry trend: the future of game development jobs may increasingly move toward regions where production is less expensive.
As AAA games continue to demand bigger teams, longer development cycles, and higher budgets, more companies may follow Saber’s path. The key question is whether this shift will create a healthier global development ecosystem or simply move the pressure from one workforce to another.
