Monday, March 30th 2026

Estimates Say GTA VI May Have Cost $2.1-$3 bn in Salaries Alone

It's no secret that the development of GTA VI has been a mammoth undertaking, but the exact figures have been a bit hazy, with previous estimates from early 2026 putting the game's total budget at around $2 billion. Now, thanks to an investigation by an internet sleuth, u/Due-Vanilla-8294 on Reddit, it seems as though Rockstar may have exceeded the $3 billion mark, with speculation putting the game's budget as high as $5 billion.

These estimations were based on recent financial filings by Rockstar and its parent company, Take-Two, wherein it was revealed that Rockstar had spent as much as $2.1 billion on salaries alone at its Rockstar North location since GTA VI went into full-scale production in 2019. Given that this is only one location's figures and that Rockstar had already started work on GTA VI long before it went into full-scale production, it has been speculated that, by the time it launches, Rockstar may have spent as much as $5 billion on GTA VI. So far, it seems as though GTA VI's high budget may have been worth it, with the game's launch trailer racking up 275 million views since it launched in 2024. GTA VI is also expected to launch at a substantial price premium, with previous rumors floating a $90+ MSRP.
Source: u/Due-Vanilla-8294 on Reddit
Add your own comment

41 Comments on Estimates Say GTA VI May Have Cost $2.1-$3 bn in Salaries Alone

#26
lexluthermiester
TheinsanegamerNpitchbook.com/profiles/company/91889-11#overview
That's not reliable info, but for giggles, let's pretend it is.
TheinsanegamerNthey have around ~6000 employees
And you think even a high fraction of those are programmers? That's not how a company as big as Rockstar is operated. For every 1 programmer there are, at MINIMUM 8 other people who work in positions conducting different function needed for company operations. So my previous statement stands.
TheinsanegamerN1000 people worked on GTA V before release
Moose muffins! Maybe a third of that, at most!
Posted on Reply
#27
TheinsanegamerN
lexluthermiesterThat's not reliable info, but for giggles, let's pretend it is.
It's easy to just dismiss anything you disagree with but its hard to actually disprove it.
lexluthermiesterAnd you think even a high fraction of those are programmers? That's not how a company as big as Rockstar is operated. For every 1 programmer there are, at MINIMUM 8 other people who work in positions conducting different function needed for company operations. So my previous statement stands.
I never said those were all programmers.

Do the salaries for all the other employees just get paid from the ether? Especially with Rockstar, where they only work on 1-2 games at a time at most, the budget of their game projects is going to reflect company operations.

You also have made an assumption that there is a 1:8 ratio of programmers to other people.....mind providing a source for that?
lexluthermiesterMoose muffins! Maybe a third of that, at most!
Again with the throwing out of anything you disagree with. It would be really embarrassing for you if Rockstar themselves had stated that and you were just refusing to acknowledge realit.....

www.gamespot.com/articles/rockstar-more-than-1000-people-made-gtav/1100-6415330/#:~:text=Rockstar:%20More%20than%201%2C000%20people,Grand%20Theft%20Auto%20IV%20combined.

Oh wait. LMFAO. :laugh: :roll: :laugh:

so what next? Are you going to claim that Rockstar is lying and feeding us all moose muffins?
Posted on Reply
#28
lexluthermiester
TheinsanegamerNIt's easy to just dismiss anything you disagree with but its hard to actually disprove it.
I'm not dismissing it because I disagree, I'm disagreeing with it because it's a third party company making what is effectively a "best guess" about a PRIVATELY held company that does not make public operating statements because they're not required to.
TheinsanegamerNmind providing a source for that?
Ever work in ANY corporate environment? Ever notice the variety of people doing a variety of functions necessary for the company's operations?
TheinsanegamerNAgain with the throwing out of anything you disagree with. It would be really embarrassing for you if Rockstar themselves had stated that and you were just refusing to acknowledge realit.....

www.gamespot.com/articles/rockstar-more-than-1000-people-made-gtav/1100-6415330/#:~:text=Rockstar: More than 1,000 people,Grand Theft Auto IV combined.
Oh wait. LMFAO. :laugh: :roll: :laugh:

so what next? Are you going to claim that Rockstar is lying and feeding us all moose muffins?
Context is important, as are details. What do YOU think you're missing?
Posted on Reply
#29
melkor_unlimited
ShihabAin’t that a bit too much money to burn on a video game?
It is.
And it is a reason why everybody, their cousin and their dog are looking for any way to cut cost down a zero or two.
And before they manage to cut costs down, they wont go for anything than another version of something what was a big success - Money wise.
Posted on Reply
#30
TheinsanegamerN
lexluthermiesterI'm not dismissing it because I disagree, I'm disagreeing with it because it's a third party company making what is effectively a "best guess" about a PRIVATELY held company that does not make public operating statements because they're not required to.

Ever work in ANY corporate environment? Ever notice the variety of people doing a variety of functions necessary for the company's operations?
Now slow down a second, re read why you dismiss my numbers, and ask why yours should not immediately be discarded.

You made up the 1:8 number and have nothing to back it up. You're making assumptions based on unrelated industries and guesses, then using it to dismiss claims with no evidence.

But we're supposed to believe you because......why?
lexluthermiesterContext is important, as are details. What do YOU think you're missing?
Context is important, as are details. What do YOU think you're missing?
Posted on Reply
#31
Octopuss
Chrispy_It cost that much because the graphics have to look better than GTA5, but nobody is playing GTA5 for the graphics, and nobody cared about the graphics of previous games either.
Speak for yourself. I wouldn't even look in the direction of a game that looks like shit even if it played godlike.
I say that because in this time and age there is no excuse for a game to not look good while playing well. We have fuckton of technology and extremely powerful hardware, and there are good artists out there.
Indie joke games that cost $2 on Steam are obviously not part of my argument, I am talking about real commercial titles.
Posted on Reply
#32
Athena
thanks to an investigation by an internet sleuth, u/Due-Vanilla-8294 on Reddit, it seems as though Rockstar may have exceeded the $3 billion mark, with speculation putting the game's budget as high as $5 billion.
lol, the numbers that are being tossed around is for EVERYTHING R* does, not just 1 game

coming next is that Nvidia invests $1B into R* to implement AI in their games, and R* then buys $1B worth of GPUs from Nvidia
Posted on Reply
#33
Chrispy_
OctopussSpeak for yourself. I wouldn't even look in the direction of a game that looks like shit even if it played godlike.
Games can look great without being photorealistic. There are plenty of games that have great art style without chasing photo-realism - that look great today and run on modest hardware. Return of the Obra din, Sable, Blue Prince, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, to name just a few.

IME photo-realism just gets more expensive to make, rules out a large demographic of players who don't have high-end hardware, and we're not getting closer to perfection, we're just getting hung up on the uncanny valley of acting, motion, and AI failing to live up to the world the photo-realism creates.
Posted on Reply
#34
Octopuss
Chrispy_Games can look great without being photorealistic.
Yes. But why shouldn't they look photorealistic if the developers can make it happen? (this depends on genre of course, with some types of games it would definitely look out of place)
Posted on Reply
#35
chrcoluk
Chrispy_Games can look great without being photorealistic. There are plenty of games that have great art style without chasing photo-realism - that look great today and run on modest hardware. Return of the Obra din, Sable, Blue Prince, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, to name just a few.

IME photo-realism just gets more expensive to make, rules out a large demographic of players who don't have high-end hardware, and we're not getting closer to perfection, we're just getting hung up on the uncanny valley of acting, motion, and AI failing to live up to the world the photo-realism creates.
Yep, some of us want to get away from realism, and prefer other artistic styles. :)

Star Ocean 4 launched "early" in Xbox 360 cycle, those character models already detailed enough. Same with Lost Oddysey. Developers have lost the plot.
Posted on Reply
#36
Chrispy_
OctopussYes. But why shouldn't they look photorealistic if the developers can make it happen? (this depends on genre of course, with some types of games it would definitely look out of place)
Why?
Have you read the thread title - OVER 3 BILLION DOLLARS.

Also, it's been 15 years since GTA V. Creating all the assets for a large, photo-realistic game world doesn't just cost stupendous amounts of money, it takes ridiculously long. I'm going to die of old age before GTA7 arrives and I'm in my forties. I was too young to buy GTA 1 and GTA 2, so the passage of time is a very real problem for these hyper-budget, photo-real AAA games with massive teams and decade-long development cycles...
Posted on Reply
#37
Octopuss
Chrispy_Have you read the thread title - OVER 3 BILLION DOLLARS.
Why would you care? Is it your money spent? I don't understand the hysteria.
Posted on Reply
#38
lexluthermiester
TheinsanegamerNNow slow down a second, re read why you dismiss my numbers, and ask why yours should not immediately be discarded.
Because mine makes sense in the real world, being based on real-world thinking. The fanciful mutterings of some daft twit from reddit(subject of this article) are based on make-believe and nonsense someone pulled out of their backside. If you want to take that info seriously, then you can be happy to look just as silly and nonsensical.
TheinsanegamerNYou made up the 1:8 number and have nothing to back it up.
No, I gave an estimate that is based on real-world observation from an ACTUAL working environments from actual and real career experience, INCLUDING having worked for a company that developed and release game titles back in the day.
TheinsanegamerNBut we're supposed to believe you because......why?
Because my estimates are based on the real-world, not unicorns and rainbows blowing sunshine up your bum.
Chrispy_Creating all the assets for a large, photo-realistic game world doesn't just cost stupendous amounts of money, it takes ridiculously long.
Not it doesn't. You're fooling yourself there. Is it cheap? No. Does it cost "stupendous amounts of money"? No. Does it take more than a decade? Also no. TakeTwo/Rockstar stated publicly that they only started working on the GTA6 a couple years ago and given that it releases next year, that's what 4 years of dev time? 5 at most? That's not a "ridiculously" long time. That's only a little bit longer than GTA5 took. So, yeah.
Posted on Reply
#39
Upgrayedd
TheinsanegamerNI'm sorry, but where did you guys learn math?

At $100 a copy, it would take 30 million copies just to break even on such a budget. That assumes a LOT too, just factoring in the 30% cut that sony/valve will take for 95% of copies sold, that brings us to nearly 43 million copies.
No game has sold that fast. Not even close.
You're right, they don't sell that fast, V still holds the 24hr record, V made something like $800m in the first 24hr, that will be 13 years ago after VI is released. R* is the only one that can sell a game that fast, and its only GTA. There's also more gamers now than in 2013. People that don't have a PS5/XBS will buy one just to play GTA VI. More people instantly buy their games as non-physical copies too, it will be more accessible than V was. Its also not coming out on PC for first release.
Posted on Reply
#40
lexluthermiester
UpgrayeddPeople that don't have a PS5/XBS will buy one just to play GTA VI.
Very doubtful.
UpgrayeddIts also not coming out on PC for first release.
Until Rockstar says that it's just rumor..
Posted on Reply
#41
Upgrayedd
lexluthermiesterVery doubtful.


Until Rockstar says that it's just rumor..
You say that like it hasn't happened the last 2 major releases lol like we're just going to completely ignore history and every piece of information released from R* has labeling for PS5/XBS and no labeling for PC.

they know how to sell it twice, three or even 4 times. initial release late in life of current consoles (PS3 for V) then PC then next consoles(PS4), and again for the next console (PS5). So you'll see the same exact thing with VI.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 11th, 2026 03:58 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts