Gran Turismo 6 coming to PS3

[maxpontiac]

Because it's not like they paid off the development of the game over two titles that sold almost 15 million copies combined or anything like that.

If one were to figure that each game sold for $30.00, that is quite the collection of zeroes..

$450,000,000 in revenue.

 

[Tornado]

What were GT5 sales at before they released XL and lowered the price?

 

[avens]

Because it's not like they paid off the development of the game over two titles that sold almost 15 million copies combined or anything like that.

You and the other guy really need to google what profit and revenue mean.

 

[Tornado]

You and the other guy really need to google what profit and revenue mean.

Ah. As to be expected, you've provided some good proof for your claims.


BTW, I'd imagine "Least profitable GT EVAR" as a claim kind of falls by the wayside when you take into account the fact that they released a polished development build to the public whose sales by itself, assuming Sony cleared $15 of revenue on each $40 copy sold with a $10 retailer margin and $5 or so for distribution with the rest being taken up by various other costs that would have diminished as time went on anyway (and not counting sales on PSN where they would have cleared much more than that). And assuming that revenue was applied to the estimated $80 million ongoing development costs of the game that its release was a part of in the first place, it seems safe to say that the profit on the game proper when it actually released would have been pretty healthy after the rest of the development costs were paid for (hence why I was curious what the sales were before Sony lowered the price of the game); since the polished development build was marketed by Sony as (and led to the sales numbers typical of) a major PS3 exclusive when it first came out and thus would have taken care of a good portion of the costs for the actual game.
It also fails to take into account that this is the first GT game to include DLC profits as part of the bottom line, but that's a lot harder to quantify since Sony hasn't released any specific numbers in a long while.






But hey. Don't let any of those things get in the way. Clearly, by the sound reasoning you've given, GT5 was by far the full blown GT game that profited the least.

 

[Ranman20]

Hopefully when it comes out they won't call premium cars "premium". Just let them be not premium. Just cars lol

 

[DiersZee1]

Ah. As to be expected, you've provided some good proof for your claims.


BTW, I'd imagine "Least profitable GT EVAR" as a claim kind of falls by the wayside when you take into account the fact that they released a polished development build to the public whose sales by itself, assuming Sony cleared $15 of revenue on each $40 copy sold with a $10 retailer margin and $5 or so for distribution with the rest being taken up by various other costs that would have diminished as time went on anyway (and not counting sales on PSN where they would have cleared much more than that). And assuming that revenue was applied to the estimated $80 million ongoing development costs of the game that its release was a part of in the first place, it seems safe to say that the profit on the game proper when it actually released would have been pretty healthy after the rest of the development costs were paid for; since the polished development build was marketed by Sony as (and led to the sales numbers typical of) a major PS3 exclusive when it first came out and thus would have taken care of a good portion of the costs for the actual game.
It also fails to take into account that this is the first GT game to include DLC profits as part of the bottom line, but that's a lot harder to quantify since Sony hasn't released any specific numbers in a long while.






But hey. Don't let any of those things get in the way. Clearly, by the sound reasoning you've given, GT5 was by far the full blown GT game that profited the least.

Those numbers are assumed. There is no way to achieve actual profit numbers from estimated revenue without having the true factors in place.

PD cannot be making much if at all based on your estimates. The XL edition with Vouchers are now going under 15.00USD. And for a few months under 20.00USD.

 

[MeanElf]

...many more track (some of which we have seen in videos), better career mode, customization, livery, engine swaps, etc... comparable to "that other game", I think that GT6 on PS3 could be very successful.

By engine swaps, I do hope you mean new engines for UCD cars and not V8s for Minis or the like? I don't think that would be in the spirit of the game.

I'm sure GT6 will have a better list of new menu options to replace some of the old whilst staying in line with the series staples. A few things tried out in GT5 such as the PP difference I mentioned earlier, worked nicely. PD have not disappointed me yet, so I have faith that GT6 will be a step forward in several ways.

 

[Griffith500]

You and the other guy really need to google what profit and revenue mean.

Whilst I'm well aware of the difference, nothing I said is at all indicative of any notion of profit or revenue; I'm simply asking you to share this "analysis" of yours.

Your claim just seems obscene when it was well known before GT5 was released that much of the announced development costs up to that point, taking deliberately conservative estimates much like Toronado presents, were likely already at least covered by the revenue from GT5.

Of course, I don't even know where to begin when comparing with previous games, which you surely must have done in some depth?

...

Those numbers are assumed.

Yeah, he said that. Assuming a conservatively low estimate of revenue to balance against a semi-official production cost figure does leave you with a sensible grasp of the rough level of profit the two games provided.

... assuming Sony cleared $15 of revenue ...

...

There is no way to achieve actual profit numbers from estimated revenue without having the true factors in place.

Exactly why this is so absurd:

Just going to post that when analyzing gt5 sales the 6 year development time must be taken into account, both on sales lost (would be better to release 3 games) and cost to produce. With that said, gt5 was by far the full blown gt game that profited the least.

...

PD cannot be making much if at all based on your estimates. The XL edition with Vouchers are now going under 15.00USD. And for a few months under 20.00USD.

The game released over two years ago, Prologue was selling for more than 2 years before that, much of which at significantly higher margins than that. There are two opposite ways to look at the current low price: either the game hasn't sold enough and needs a serious kick, or it's already sold more than enough. I think the latter is more likely.

 

[Tornado]

Those numbers are assumed. There is no way to achieve actual profit numbers from estimated revenue without having the true factors in place.

I never said my numbers were ironclad in my purposely-conservative estimate based on already-estimated figures presented here (and roughly correlated with other estimates elsewhere) in response to an opposite assertion from avens based on nothing whatsoever.

PD cannot be making much if at all based on your estimates. The XL edition with Vouchers are now going under 15.00USD. And for a few months under 20.00USD.

That's a few months for a game that is also 2 and a half years old in a highly front-loaded industry. Sony's cut of that is probably slightly lower than the retailer margin in that case (because both numbers shrink as games age), at which point you need to estimate a $2-4 revenue stream over however many sales it has made since dropping to that price. Which would certainly be problematic if they hadn't already achieved millions of sales at a $60 price point.

 

[DiersZee1]

Yeah, he said that. Assuming a conservatively low estimate of revenue to balance against a semi-official production cost figure does leave you with a sensible grasp of the rough level of profit the two games provided.

...


Exactly why this is so absurd:

...


The game released over two years ago, Prologue was selling for more than 2 years before that, much of which at significantly higher margins than that. There are two opposite ways to look at the current low price: either the game hasn't sold enough and needs a serious kick, or it's already sold more than enough. I think the latter is more likely.

That's probably why I said things like "assuming" and "estimated" and "not counting" in my post based on already-estimated figures presented here in response to an opposite assertion from avens based on nothing whatsoever.

That's a few months for a game that is also 2 and a half years old in a highly front-loaded industry. Sony's cut of that is probably slightly lower than the retailer margin in that case (because both numbers shrink as games age), at which point you need to estimate a $2-4 revenue stream over however many sales it has made since dropping to that price. Which would certainly be problematic if they hadn't already achieved millions of sales at a $60 price point.

Avens does not need to explain IMHO. There are more parties involved in the entire equation that is not being factored into it.

Just list everyone involved in the supply chain and each of those parties is take a cut off the margins. It is not just PD, SONY and Retailers.

Granted PD has to be making some sort of profit, but nothing like what some folks are making it out to be....but this is all estimated anyways.

 

[Tornado]

Avens does not need to explain IMHO.

avens was the one who made the initial claim about profitability!

There are more parties involved in the entire equation that is not being factored into it.

Just list everyone involved in the supply chain and each of those parties is take a cut off the margins. It is not just PD, SONY and Retailers.

No one ever said it was just Sony and the retailers, and those extra parties involved were taken into account even if they weren't explicitly listed:

$5 or so for distribution with the rest being taken up by various other costs that would have diminished as time went on anyway

 

[Griffith500]

Avens does not need to explain IMHO. There are more parties involved in the entire equation that is not being factored into it.

Just list everyone involved in the supply chain and each of those parties is take a cut off the margins. It is not just PD, SONY and Retailers.

Granted PD has to be making some sort of profit, but nothing like what some folks are making it out to be....but this is all estimated anyways.

So do you think it's sensible to try to compare the profit made on GT5 against GT, GT2, GT3 and GT4? avens apparently has analysed all of these and come to the conclusion that GT5 made the "least" profit, "by far". I think that might need some justification, because that's not just an "opinion" any more.

 

[XxBradCheeseCak]

some people say to play online we will need to pay the online like xbox that's stupid

 

[Madertus]

^For GT6 or for PS4? Either way I'm not getting any of those if it's true.

And WHO says so? You're the first one I've ever seen to mention this.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

agreed, totally. if the online experience in GT6 is even slightly improved over GT5 then i'm buying, no hesitation.

love your room btw, i'm a frequent racer there (tg764qax, that's me, also from Texas).

Thanks man!

 

[Mercdriver]

If an exec says its true, it could be or they're trying to create some hype

 

[BongRipz]

some people say to play online we will need to pay the online like xbox that's stupid

Thats not such a bad thing when you think about it. Consider how much better online experience is with a dedicated moderator team that removers cheaters, hackers, and exploiters. Dedicated moderator support like that is well worth paying a subscription for.

 

[cletus 669]

Thats not such a bad thing when you think about it. Consider how much better online experience is with a dedicated moderator team that removers cheaters, hackers, and exploiters. Dedicated moderator support like that is well worth paying a subscription for.

Nope! NOT! Never! If they did that it would be the end of them getting ANY of my money! I already pay for my internet and refuse to pay again to use it on another devise, that is why I will never have an Xbox. Maybe you would like to double pay for things but not I.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Nope! NOT! Never! If they did that it would be the end of them getting ANY of my money! I already pay for my internet and refuse to pay again to use it on another devise, that is why I will never have an Xbox. Maybe you would like to double pay for things but not I.

I pay for Netflix in addition to my monthly internet bill. I also pay for Flickr Pro and my dedicated personal webspace.

Er, and for XBL. It's a few dollars a month when you buy a whole year's worth, and like the old saying goes: "you get what you pay for". If it meant an improved network with dedicated support staff, I'd throw a few dollar's Sony's way each year 👍

 

[bigbear]

I pay for Netflix in addition to my monthly internet bill. I also pay for Flickr Pro and my dedicated personal webspace.

Er, and for XBL. It's a few dollars a month when you buy a whole year's worth, and like the old saying goes: "you get what you pay for". If it meant an improved network with dedicated support staff, I'd throw a few dollar's Sony's way each year 👍

I don't think it's unreasonable to pay for such a service ,but for me it's not worth it. If they can keep some basic features of the network free while adding to Plus everyone can get what they want from the service. Besides, cutting off everyone who doesn't pay would make it harder to bring people into the paid service. I'm always for a balanced solution.

 

[maxpontiac]

If one were to figure that each game sold for $30.00, that is quite the collection of zeroes..

$450,000,000 in revenue.

Here is what I said, and you followed it with this??

You and the other guy really need to google what profit and revenue mean.

By very definition, revenue means -

the return or yield from any kind of property, patent, service, etc.; income.

PDI created a property in GT5 and sold it to millions of people, and thus recieved a return and income from the aforementioned.

 

[MeanElf]

...If they can keep some basic features of the network free while adding to Plus everyone can get what they want from the service. Besides, cutting off everyone who doesn't pay would make it harder to bring people into the paid service. I'm always for a balanced solution.

Definitely agree with this and what SlipZtrEm said. I seem to remember there being talk in the presentation about two types of service during the presentation, one paid and the other free - so it looks like you'll get your wish.

I suppose it'll be much as it is now but with more functionality there will be more incentive.

 

[cletus 669]

I pay for Netflix in addition to my monthly internet bill. I also pay for Flickr Pro and my dedicated personal webspace.

Er, and for XBL. It's a few dollars a month when you buy a whole year's worth, and like the old saying goes: "you get what you pay for". If it meant an improved network with dedicated support staff, I'd throw a few dollar's Sony's way each year 👍

Well that is great for you, I however, if they charge me to play online I will boycott sony and PD. I may be behind the times but don't see me paying extra. If they told me I had to pay to write on this site I would happily delete my account. I don't care if it only figures out to be pennies a day I still would not pay. In my opinion that is just plain ludicrus!

 

[ZohsixGT5]

So I guess that leaves you with the Wii U then for online play...

 

[cletus 669]

So I guess that leaves you with the Wii U then for online play...

Or nothing at all. GT is the only game I play at all so if they want to charge me to play it then I will just move on and live my life without video games. Not a big loss in my eyes.

 

[AleksandarSRB]

Or nothing at all. GT is the only game I play at all so if they want to charge me to play it then I will just move on and live my life without video games. Not a big loss in my eyes.

Play offline

 

[cletus 669]

Play offline

Or this! That works too.👍

 

[AleksandarSRB]

Or this! That works too.👍

I play oflline 90% of my time. I don't like online

 

[TheDabbinDave]

Or nothing at all. GT is the only game I play at all so if they want to charge me to play it then I will just move on and live my life without video games. Not a big loss in my eyes.

If enough people speak with their wallet and figure the $60 price tag of a game already covers premium Internet play, the industry would buckle to OUR demands. But noooooooooo, Xbots sucked up whatever M$ forced upon them with great glee.

 

[Scaff]

If enough people speak with their wallet and figure the $60 price tag of a game already covers premium Internet play, the industry would buckle to OUR demands. But noooooooooo, Xbots sucked up whatever M$ forced upon them with great glee.

Its not a MS vs Sony thread or a discussion about on-line subscription discussion, so please keep the flame bait out of the thread.