OK, so get this. The average PlayStation 3 game costs $8.6 million to create. As if that isn't bad enough for game developers' pockets, according to Takeo Takasu, president of Namco Bandai, 500,000 units of each game must be sold worldwide in order to break even.
“We have to sell at least 500,000 copies per title worldwide to make a profit on PlayStation 3 games,'' said Takasu.
So far the Japanese firm has released two games for the PS3, Ridge Racer 7 and Gundam, both of which are available in Japan and North America, and according to Takasu are "selling well..
500,000 copies sold or no profit? That, people, is batshit insane. Bad enough, Sony is on their crazy trip, where they believe losing millions of dollars is the path to making profits in the future, but now they're making sure game developers suffer with them.
In case you guys didn't know, Namco Bandai is currently in the process of developing THIRTY (yes, three-zero) games for the Wii. How many for the PS3 and the 360 together? Ten. It's all starting to add up.
[Via Pro-G]
Contest:
10:00 AM on 11.30.2006 | 
Yes, actual next gen games are expensive and take a good time to make, whats new about that? should I as a customer give a shit? Im paying $50 - $60 a piece I dont want to pay that for shit they cook over the weekend, do you?
"You know how many shitty movies are being made by Jackie Chan thats like 5 each year, FUCK just count that!"
"You know how many movies the Cohen brothers have made in their entire career? 8! is all starting to add up!"
Get your facts straight.
The thing is, companies don't make videogames for you. They make them because they like money. So what happens when, under normal circumstances, games don't make money?
1) Prices go up to purchase these games, directly affecting you.Sometimes this added price is invisible, as we can see with the 'micro-transactions' going on in places like XBox Live.
2) Things like play-testing and quality assurance diminish. This has long been an issue with PC gaming (which often takes the stance of 'shipping the game, ship the patch to make the game work later').
3) Creativity is dimished. Some people might call me on this, but those people would be wrong. The fact is that the top-selling videogames are nearly ALL sequels. They're proven money. If you're Mr.McNobody and you want to pitch your idea of a wacky dating/rythmn game, you'll have to convince someone with ~9 million dollars that you can make that money back for them.
Make no mistake: This cost is the result of being 'next-gen.'
- Eddie
As usual big money kills creativity, So for cool concepts it's low-cost/low-fi games like on Xbox Live Arcade (Geometry Wars type, not those ultra lame 086 ports.
@Ashdate: i think we can expect the launch/patch trick for console too, with allmost everybody online (and a very small tiny lettered notice on the box: 'online connectivity is required to boot this game')
As a developer I would take that with a grain of salt, because if a ton of "CASUAL" games are coming for the Wii and I invest money in it just because is "cheap" chances are people will eventually get fed up with CASUAL games and they will get buy games that actually are worth their price. (Zelda, Metroid) if I make a cheap games for a saturated cheap market I probaly wont even be noticed and end up losing money instead of making it.
Besides, the real reason why developers are bitching about ps3 developing is because they simply arent enough PS3 units available to get a profit... At least not now. Wait 1 year and then we will talk.
So, when no non-Sony-fanboy buys a PS3 a year from now because there are still only 20 games for it total, and the developers aren't creating any games because they're still waiting for the console base to get up there, yes, then we will talk.
Im just really kinda eh with the ps3 and the blu-ray discs. I think they should have let the blu-ray get its name out there before saying this is our new platform for our games. Im just scared that the PS3 wont have the titles that take risks. And saying that developers will put out half baked titles for the Wii is a copout Azrael I highly doubt that. And if you are gonna use that money vs quality theory, look at independent films they are some of the best and innovative movies that come out. I just hope the PS3 wont make mission impossible 3 games awesome graphics, big explosions, mediocre story and gameplay.
And in case i am no fanboy the only system i own at the moment is the Playstation 2. And im a die hard RPG player and im scared that Developers wont come out with games like Xenogears and Valkyrie profile. Because they rather make a game that they know will make there quota for sales. My decision i am making is to get the Wii, And wait to see what happens with the PS3 until i decide to buy one. And the 600 price tag doesnt scare me so its not a money issue either.
Now the question is: If sony had made 4 million PS3's instead of 200,000 would they have sold out? Fanboyism aside, considering the huge sony Ps2 fanbase and the PS3 launch sales chaos, I think they probably would. (at least a pretty good part of them would)
What would happen when sony ships 4 million PS3's? more developers will do games for them. Is that simple.
Developers wont make games for a console that is pretty expensive and rare. is just not a good investment.(at least not full _exclusive_ next gen games)
Everything Ishaan posted were either facts (the quoted material) or reasonable commentary on what is clearly a very high number of items that must sell through to even begin making a profit.
Any company would be remiss to not take a step back and question the amount of support they should throw into a console with such a steep break through point for profit (at least at this time).
And also im new to this website and am really loving how awesome and mature the people are here. Its not like kids going "Wii Sucks PS3 rocks!!!!" haha. So yea guess i will be posting and visiting quite frequently =).
- Battling for the number 2 spot, between 3 major competitors. Sega Dreamcast and Sega Saturn. Although it was on par (if not superior) to consoles of the same generation, due to Playstation and N64 popularity, the Dreamcast/Saturn was the beginnings of the end for Sega. (Similar to PS3, but Sony has a much bigger name for itself, and bigger fanboy base than Sega did, so it can potentially survive this)
- Poor game media choise. N64 chose to use cartridges over CDs, which ended up making N64 games more expensive to develop than PS games. Consequently, the PS had many more 'quality' games, and just more games in general than the N64. (Identical to PS3. Not system destroying, but still bad press)
- Games not being able to support the console. Atari 2600. They made 12,000,000 pac man cartridges, but only ended up selling 10,000,000 consoles worldwide. (Sound similar to the current PS3 situation?)
- Not a general topic, but take the 3D-0. It failed for 2 major reasons. It was released ahead of its time, between console generations, and was just not worth the development to make games for it. Additionally, the system itself cost $699.99 at release. (Once again, both seem to parallel the PS3 launch pretty well, other than the in between generations part)
Yeah, there are many ways that Sony can dig themselves out of this hole, and they're far from dead yet. But they've screwed themselves over in almost every way possible. They've basically just copied every failed console release tactic since the Atari 2600.
so, it would be a Double-edged sword for PS3 owners.
http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf
On page 8, you'll see a note that only <b>52 Console Games sold more then 500,000 in 2004.</b>
That's right, out of EVERY console game created in 2004, barely 50 (out of perhaps, hundreds) sold over 500,000. And keep in mind, that not all of those 52 games were even on a Playstation 2.
So people like Azrael? I think you really should be concerned.
- Eddie
Looks like maybe Ishaan actually had a point worth making.
Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with the sane minds above who realize that when a major publisher is having trouble making money on your console, it can't bode well for business.
Really, its a chicken and the egg thing. Sure the PS3 will sell out to people like Azrael no matter what. The problem is that they didn't ship a lot of consoles and they are losing developer support at a rapid pace. So if the install base in small for a full year then the developer support is not just going to wait around. These companies have to make games to stay in business. If the install base for PS3 is not big enough NOW, then they will work on other consoles for the time being. This leads to fewer games in the PS3 library (and more games for the competition). We all know that fewer games in the library leads to slower console sales. Its a tough spiral to be in no matter who it is. Nintendo has had this problem for a long time, now it seems Sony is sharing a bit of it.
You make a good point, but it raises the question; so what if developers do everything you say? Will they then only need to sell 400,000 units to break even? The point is that even if they figure a way to make cheaper games, those techniques will also translate to the other consoles. So if they cut 2 million from the gaming budget, that same 2 million would be cut from the budget if they made an xbox360 version. In the end the PS3 will still be much less profitable no matter what cuts they learn to make. Theres just no way to look at this outside of the fact that it's bad news for Sony.