Insomniac to go cross platform?

[Carl B]

I don't know. I think it's unlikely as Insomniac could become a premier PS3 developer on the same level as Naughty Dog on PS3 while multiplat they will be overshadowed by talented exclusive developers on both sides.

Honestly with R2 they showed that they struggle to make a game in their yearly release cycle with a decent level of polish and get big tech advancements with each game so it would be even harder to get to the front of the pack with multiplat development. Really they need to shape up and get the help from Sony's tech divisions (ICE, SCE Cambridge) to get up to speed with the latest PS3 developments and become the developer they are clearly capable of being.

I have to say, I think you're selling Insomniac short here. For all intents and purposes they are one of Sony's "tech divisions," taking part in all the cross-studio tech sharing that has been of note thus far; with ICE, Guerilla, Naughty Dog, and the other first parties. IMO they are in fact the closest thing to a first party you can have without actually being one (up until now, hypothetically, of course).

The yearly release schedule is, frankly, impressive; half the titles sold across the same employee pool at twice the rate of titles released would IMO be a wash. But obviously the thinking (so far as I would imagine in the context of this rumor) would be the relative ease to port to 360 with what is already a technology platform that lends itself to some abstraction while remaining data centric. I don't know whether this rumor is true or not - and I would like to think not myself - but I would understand either way.

As for "blaming the environment," I mean personally I think it is perfectly legitimate to have pointed out the 60fps dichotomy for example. How would they match games like Uncharted 2, if they are opting to push frames instead of effects? I sympathize with the frustrations.

 

[liolio]

They should not imho.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If Naughty Dog can sell 5m Uncharted 2 copies (which is well within the realm of possibility) then it isn't the PS3 userbase holding Insomniac back from greatness and awesome sales. They need to look within and not blame the environment for the problems...

You can't take a best performer as a realistic standard. Because MW can sell 20 million, every developer making an FPS should be aiming for 20 million sales and it's their fault if they don't get it. There are no sure-fire recipes for success. And if you don't have a console company bankrolling your creations whether they succeed or flop, there's added pressure to maximise profits. Going cross-platform could be 50% more sales, which will be multiple times more profit. The only reason not to is if in focussing on one platform, you can create a better title that's more competitve and attracts more buyers as a result. There's no guaranteed way to do that though, with exclusives failing to sell across platforms. Thus hedging bets makes considerable sense.

Putting it another way, what could Insomniac do different? Have they developed the wrong games to prevent 5 million+ sales per title? Did they not create good enough games? If you were placed in charge of Insomniac tomorrow, what changes would you invoke to remain PS3 exclusive yet increase sales of titles?

 

[minimoke]

And if you don't have a console company bankrolling your creations...

Didn't Sony invest a considerable amount of money into the Resistance IP?

 

[dragonelite]

You can't take a best performer as a realistic standard. Because MW can sell 20 million, every developer making an FPS should be aiming for 20 million sales and it's their fault if they don't get it. There are no sure-fire recipes for success. And if you don't have a console company bankrolling your creations whether they succeed or flop, there's added pressure to maximise profits. Going cross-platform could be 50% more sales, which will be multiple times more profit. The only reason not to is if in focussing on one platform, you can create a better title that's more competitve and attracts more buyers as a result. There's no guaranteed way to do that though, with exclusives failing to sell across platforms. Thus hedging bets makes considerable sense.

Putting it another way, what could Insomniac do different? Have they developed the wrong games to prevent 5 million+ sales per title? Did they not create good enough games? If you were placed in charge of Insomniac tomorrow, what changes would you invoke to remain PS3 exclusive yet increase sales of titles?

Its not that the games arent good or something.
But sony takes on marketing isn't that good from what i see microsoft do.
Here in holland the Mw 2 commercial was action packed rap music and promoted as a 360 exclusive.

And it is mostly marketing that gets you those 2 million sold release copies. My little brother who isn't that into gaming saw the commercial of rogue warrior, he didn't knew the game was like 3 hours long and bug ridden but he wanted to buy it because of the swearing in it and blood. Good thing i told him it's not worth the money. My mom who saw the uncharted 2 commercial first thought it was a action movie one of the view games i saw sony marketing good.

I just see it this way the core will get you those 1~2 million copies but the casual who are brought in with a good marketing campaign will get you those 3 million plus copies. And to judge a good marketing campaign i just watch my family members reaction to it.

 

[Rangers]

I have to say, I think you're selling Insomniac short here. For all intents and purposes they are one of Sony's "tech divisions," taking part in all the cross-studio tech sharing that has been of note thus far; with ICE, Guerilla, Naughty Dog, and the other first parties. IMO they are in fact the closest thing to a first party you can have without actually being one (up until now, hypothetically, of course).

The yearly release schedule is, frankly, impressive; half the titles sold across the same employee pool at twice the rate of titles released would IMO be a wash. But obviously the thinking (so far as I would imagine in the context of this rumor) would be the relative ease to port to 360 with what is already a technology platform that lends itself to some abstraction while remaining data centric. I don't know whether this rumor is true or not - and I would like to think not myself - but I would understand either way.

As for "blaming the environment," I mean personally I think it is perfectly legitimate to have pointed out the 60fps dichotomy for example. How would they match games like Uncharted 2, if they are opting to push frames instead of effects? I sympathize with the frustrations.

Personally I think a couple key give aways make it near dead certain.

-One, it came out of GDC, where lots of devs are talking to journos, where IGN got it from a "trusted source".

-Two, Insomniac didn't deny it. They gave the "we dont comment on rumors or speculation" line.

If they weren't making a multiplatform game, they would have just denied it.

 

[obonicus]

They didn't deny it last time this rumor came up, though.

 

[Ghostz]

You can't take a best performer as a realistic standard. Because MW can sell 20 million, every developer making an FPS should be aiming for 20 million sales and it's their fault if they don't get it. There are no sure-fire recipes for success. And if you don't have a console company bankrolling your creations whether they succeed or flop, there's added pressure to maximise profits. Going cross-platform could be 50% more sales, which will be multiple times more profit. The only reason not to is if in focussing on one platform, you can create a better title that's more competitve and attracts more buyers as a result. There's no guaranteed way to do that though, with exclusives failing to sell across platforms. Thus hedging bets makes considerable sense.

Putting it another way, what could Insomniac do different? Have they developed the wrong games to prevent 5 million+ sales per title? Did they not create good enough games? If you were placed in charge of Insomniac tomorrow, what changes would you invoke to remain PS3 exclusive yet increase sales of titles?

Whose profit are you talking about? The Publisher's?

There's only the potential to maximise profits for the publishers, the people who are developing the games, their returns won't change.

What I figure, chasing the market trend is unsustainable. Nobody is returning an investment as a multi-format and nobody is willing to admit it, especially the publishers. Other than Modern Warfare, GTA and Assassins Creed 2 whose making money as multi-format? Epic Games likes their relationship with Microsoft. I highly doubt Gears of War would have been as successful as a multi-format title - Unreal 3 hasn't returned any kind of the same profits. The way I see it, the money is being made by the format exclusives, XBLA/ PSN or iPhone type titles. You are seeing a greater number of exclusive titles breaking the 3 million mark, at a greater ratio.

IMO, the industry has been wrong from the get-go and only more studios will close trying to 'chase the market'.

 

[patsu]

only more studios will close trying to 'chase the market'.

This I kinda agree. But if done with prudence and competence, it can be rewarding. It usually takes longer, and more attempts than expected though (Failure rate is high).

Still going to support Insomniac should they go multi-platform. Am a little worried about the potential backlash, but if they think they have something special, then go for it (or may be do different [slightly] games for different platforms ?).

EDIT: I'm more talking about identifying and writing game for the intended market, instead of chasing what's hot right now.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's only the potential to maximise profits for the publishers, the people who are developing the games, their returns won't change.

How do you reason that? More sales equals more royalties.

 

[Ghostz]

Whose profit are you talking about? The Publisher's?

There's only the potential to maximise profits for the publishers, the people who are developing the games, their returns won't change.

What I figure, chasing the market trend is unsustainable. Nobody is returning an investment as a multi-format and nobody is willing to admit it, especially the publishers. Other than Modern Warfare, GTA and Assassins Creed 2 whose making money as multi-format? Epic Games likes their relationship with Microsoft. I highly doubt Gears of War would have been as successful as a multi-format title - Unreal 3 hasn't returned any kind of the same profits. The way I see it, the money is being made by the format exclusives, XBLA/ PSN or iPhone type titles. You are seeing a greater number of exclusive titles breaking the 3 million mark, at a greater ratio.

IMO, the industry has been wrong from the get-go and only more studios will close trying to 'chase the market'.

How do you reason that? More sales equals more royalties.

You are assuming you will get more sales addressing multiple markets, this is a fallacy.

It surely been the case. Publishers aren't accounting for variable change: the cost of effectively developing 2 or 3 ( if you include Pc or Wii ) projects as one return on investment. I think the best way to look at is man power.

In fact, you aren't maximising your man talent doing multiple format titles. Insomanic is able to do 1 ps3 title per year, achieve 2-3 million sales each title, in three years, they would have achieved 1.75x return on investment, with the same man power, as a multiple format user did working 4 years and 1 title. They have effectively taken 70 percent of the man power and produced 300 percent more results: they are able to work in smaller teams, be a tech laboratory for ps3 development and produce one title per year. That's a company I would invest in.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You are assuming you will get more sales addressing multiple markets, this is a fallacy.

COD:MW would have sold more units as a single platform title? Same with Batman:AA? Bioshock started reducing its sales once it was released for PS3?!

It surely been the case. Publishers aren't accounting for variable change: the cost of effectively developing 2 or 3 ( if you include Pc or Wii ) projects as one return on investment. I think the best way to look at is man power.

The greatest cost of a project is asset creation. Porting the engine is a fraction of the overall investment. For the cost of 5 people working a year on the engine, you can increase sales by 50+%. Let's take Sacred 2 for example. Ascalon were going to create those art assets for PC no matter what. That took them 3 years or whatever. They added a few engineers to create their console versions and greatly increased sales as a result. The cost of expanding to another platform is far less than typically expected returns, which is why pretty much every 3rd party developer is producing cross-platform titles.

 

[patsu]

I think from his (investment) perspective, his consideration also includes risk profile/management, not only the potential windfall.

 

[eastmen]

With multiplatform it realyl depends on how much the port costs. If it costs more than selling an additional 100 thousand copies then thee is a risk of it costing you more money.


Anyway I think the big question is if sony owns Resistance as an ip. If they don't then why wouldn't Insominac release them on the 360 / pc. They can most likely release part 1 +2 as a single sku on the 360 and pc and make a quick few million.

 

[patsu]

Sony owns the IPs.

Also, it's not only a matter of porting costs. e.g., The overall complexity (development, management, marketing, etc.) is higher when you need to develop for multiple platforms. Software quality may take a hit.

 

[Ghostz]

This I kinda agree. But if done with prudence and competence, it can be rewarding. It usually takes longer, and more attempts than expected though (Failure rate is high).

Still going to support Insomniac should they go multi-platform. Am a little worried about the potential backlash, but if they think they have something special, then go for it (or may be do different [slightly] games for different platforms ?).

EDIT: I'm more talking about identifying and writing game for the intended market, instead of chasing what's hot right now.

COD:MW would have sold more units as a single platform title? Same with Batman:AA? Bioshock started reducing its sales once it was released for PS3?!

The greatest cost of a project is asset creation. Porting the engine is a fraction of the overall investment. For the cost of 5 people working a year on the engine, you can increase sales by 50+%. Let's take Sacred 2 for example. Ascalon were going to create those art assets for PC no matter what. That took them 3 years or whatever. They added a few engineers to create their console versions and greatly increased sales as a result. The cost of expanding to another platform is far less than typically expected returns, which is why pretty much every 3rd party developer is producing cross-platform titles.

Errors in probability. Instead of purchasing more 'engineers" they could've been working on a sequel and been on their to a greater return on their original investment.

This is the problem in the industry: you fall alone the reasoning that A will produce the resultant of X without fully understanding all of the associated cost to produce a title like MW. You assume MW's gamble will payoff for everyone and use examples to self-validated your reasoning. Take Rocksteady, the company that made Arkum. They went and got purchased. Who wins in this deal? Warner gets more shares in hopes they can produce another hit but Rocksteady gets jack, maybe a pat on their backs from peers. At least Insomanic is independent, for now.

 

[gokickrocks]

Errors in probability. Instead of purchasing more 'engineers" they could've been working on a sequel and been on their to a greater return on their original investment.

This is the problem in the industry: you fall alone the reasoning that A will produce the resultant of X without fully understanding all of the associated cost to produce a title like MW. You assume MW's gamble will payoff for everyone and use examples to self-validated your reasoning.

aren't you doing the same thing by assuming the opposite by bringing up Rocksteady?

I am of the mindset that from a business perspective it is better to go multiplatform, especially since many developers have said it is much easier to go from ps3 to 360 than the other way around and as was said before the majority of cost is from asset development which both platforms would share

 

[Ghostz]

aren't you doing the same thing by assuming the opposite by bringing up Rocksteady?

I am of the mindset that from a business perspective it is better to go multiplatform, especially since many developers have said it is much easier to go from ps3 to 360 than the other way around and as was said before the majority of cost is from asset development which both platforms would share

Riddle me this: who's making money doing multiplatform titles?

 

[patsu]

I didn't really make any assumptions though. There is no absolute certainty either way. Execution and luck count.

You will find success stories in both routes, and in both cases, they match the expected risk and reward profile (i.e., high risk, high gain; a lot of people failed because of the high risk).

 

[obonicus]

Riddle me this: who's making money doing multiplatform titles?

Capcom? Tell me this: do you know which developers make money?