This is before tax numbers, yes.
Actually, to go on a little spiel here, a lot of indie games cost way more than most people think; as an example, Indivisible cost around $3.5 million, and Bloodstained cost around $5 million, with characters in Skullgirls costing around $200,000 a character.
Just wanted to put things into perspective because in the last few years, I think the general public has gotten a very skewed image of how much it actually costs to make a game, and not in a good way; when you Kickstarters asking for like $5,000 for a full blown game, it's almost guaranteed they're not gonna have enough to complete the game.
I would estimate something like the following needs for games, in terms of the money you'd need to pay a team long enough to accomplish said game + assets needed etc.
Bare bones game - $100,000+
Decent quality/slightly above average game - $300,000+
Exceptional quality game - $1,000,000+
The thing is, for a game to get made on a budget below $100k, you're going to need one of (if not multiple) things to be true;
1) The game has a secondary source of funding (devs already well off financially or living with parents or with a partner with significant income); therefore, the actual cost of the game is much higher than the Kickstarter/Patreon might come off as being
2) The game has a secondary source of funding (devs are using their day job to put a small amount of money from it into the game); in this scenario, the game will take a very, very long time to complete
3) The game is made by very well known devs or with a very well known IP, and thus a publisher or some other entity is willing to foot extraneous bills (either paying for all assets etc. or paying for the employee rents, utilities, something like this), again, not giving a full picture of the money spent/needed
4) The game is being made by a 1 in a million, supremely skilled developer who can do practically everything themselves (audio, programming, writing, art) and do it well, and do it fast, meaning that the only thing the money even goes towards is just paying their rent/bills and no one else needs to get paid
Outside of those four cases, I can't think of a case where a game would get made with decent quality, and made quickly (within 1-2 years time), while having enough money to pay everyone working on the game, that would get made for less than $100k or even $50k.
And if you extrapolate out the time spent on a lot of these games, many indie game creators are effectively working for way, way less than what a typical programmer/artist/writer/audio specialist would make in a salaried career.
The average programmer in the USA makes $20-30 an hour; if you take that $100,000 for a base level game up above and assume three people on a team will take 2 years to make a game, that's $16,666 a year, or $8 an hour, assuming a 40 hour work-week. That's almost the federal minimum wage, for a job that typically pays 3x that much in normal circumstances, minimum.
Sure, they may make a lot of money back with game sales, but there's no ensuring they'll actually sell well; this is also assuming they pay no one else for any other assets (and no money spent on marketing), and it assumes they even
raised $100k in the first place when many, many indie game kickstarters raise only a fraction of that.
This isn't even considering either that most indie devs are doing 20+ different skillsets usually (an artist doing CGs, backgrounds, animation, sprites, special effects, GUI, design, linework, coloring, tiles, when on an AAA team they'd have one or more people dedicated to each of those skillsets), and... you get the picture.
Figured that might put things in perspective though for some people, not in relation to our game, but just indie games and video games in general.
(On the other end of the scale, here's some of the most expensive games ever made; take special note of how much these companies spend on marketing versus the actual game itself, it's wild.
You must be registered to see the links
)