Koei on Ps3 Costs

[<nu>faust]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/28/news_6134592.html

"With Microsoft announcing its worldwide pricing scheme for the Xbox 360, the onus is now on Sony Computer Entertainment to decide how much its PlayStation 3 will cost consumers.

However, SCE also needs to assure third-party publishers that its next-gen console will be affordable for a wide enough audience to ensure PS3 games will be profitable to make. Recently, Koei CEO Keiko Erikawa commented that her company would consider shifting to another platform if PS3 development proves too expensive"

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Blah, blah, blah, they don't know what they're talking about!!! Blah, blah, blah, Koei games suck anyways. Blah, blah, blah...

Okay, just had to get that out of the way.

 

[Qroach]

Interesting. This is a totally different side of the market that many people don't consider. They think, sony can just bring out a console at a higher price and people will be inerested and all the publishers will automatically automatically support them. The thing is if publishers cdon't think they can make thier money back, they will hesitate to provide supprot.

it will be interesitng to see what people say about this.

 

[TrungGap]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/28/news_6134592.html

However, SCE also needs to assure third-party publishers that its next-gen console will be affordable for a wide enough audience to ensure PS3 games will be profitable to make. Recently, Koei CEO Keiko Erikawa commented that her company would consider shifting to another platform if PS3 development proves too expensive.

Though, this is nothing new. However, I'm interested in what part of the cost equation changed with PS3. I assume that production cost for xbox, ps2, x360 and ps3 will continue to increase (as the audience expection will continue to demand it). So, is it the licensing or development cost?

Another I didn't quite understand is...production cost is usually the largest factor, here. Future games need to be cross platforms in order to offset the cost of production. So, with a large install base of PS2, why can't KOEI still target PS2 and PS3 and not too worry with PS3 install base. Unless she thinks development cost of the PS3 will take a larger percentage.

So it seems that MS and Nintendo is definitely on the right track trying to reduce the cost of producing a game. I know that Sony is trying to do the same, however they just don't give that impression as MS and Nintendo. MS and Nintendo is acknowledging the issue and pro-actively addressing it.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

Um, what's so drastically more expensive about coding for the PS3 than the 360? Isn't the majority of costs in art assets anyway? Would a PS3 dev care to clarify what costs so much more on the PS3 than another system? This is the same stuff we heard this gen, and it didn't change much of anything. PEACE.

 

[Qroach]

It's the cost of the console itself. If PS3 is going to cost more than what people have become accustomed to, less people will by them. That will cause the install base to grow much more slowly and thus make publishers think about going with a cheaper platform.

I'll tell you one thing, publishers don't give two shits about which console is the most powerful. All they care about is making money and they will always flock to the system that gives them the most potential to make money. This will influence game developers to develop on the console that has the most potential to make money. There's always a few exceptions with developers or publishers, but basically where the publishers want to spend thier money is where the majority of development goes.

 

[Qroach]

It's not necessairly the development cost different between the two platforms. That's basically a wash. It's the ability to sell units and/or convince the publishers that you can sell more units compared to the competition. having a higehr price at retail isn't a good way to achieve either. Playstation name or not.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

It's not necessairly the development cost different between the two platforms. That's basically a wash. It's the ability to sell units and/or convince the publishers that you can sell more units compared to the competition. having a higehr price at retail isn't a good way to achieve either. Playstation name or not.

Um, that's a given. But her comments are most certainly about dev cost, not hardware cost. Console pricing is a marketing thing that not even 3rd parties will know at this point. PEACE.

 

[The GameMaster]

Cost of the machine is one thing... but cost of media and development is something entirely different. Think back to when Nintendo was king... what caused most of their developers to jump ship to the Playstation platform back then? Two main things... expensive media and difficulty of game development. Storage medium certain had part of that reason also as the CD format held a *LOT* more information compared to the ROM in N64 cartridges by a factor of 10-81 times, though the major trade off was transfer rates as a lot of Japanese developers started to rely heavily on FMVs and other prerendered media. As I said though the biggest reasons are cost of game development and the cost of media, and from what I remember those N64 ROMs was very expensive and this contributed to increased game prices in a number of the N64's games. The Nintendo64 was not exactly a very friendly system to work with and that attributed to some increased production costs compared to Playstation 1 games.

So what are the similarities today? Basically the same two problems... increased media cost in regards to BluRay and increased cost of game development (combination of increased need for content and complexity of architecture compared to competitors). It is certainly possible what Sony did to Nintendo could happen again and Microsoft could do the same to Sony, will it happen? Who knows... only time will tell for sure. I don't think it will be as acute as what happened to Nintendo, but the result could end up being the same. Microsoft is attempting to address the problem with the increased need for content, but it is not entirely known if Sony will be able to answer in the same manner or as effiectively... and that may attribute to any possible shift.

As with a lot of things... only time will tell...

 

[a688]

Um, what's so drastically more expensive about coding for the PS3 than the 360? Isn't the majority of costs in art assets anyway? Would a PS3 dev care to clarify what costs so much more on the PS3 than another system? This is the same stuff we heard this gen, and it didn't change much of anything. PEACE.

I'd imagine that PS3 software would possibly cost more because companies can charge more for it, harder to program (correctly/well) the SPEs, harder to use more available hardware threads to optimize performance. Art costs should be similar unless Sony requires games to be able to run in 1080p and therefore need higher quality in game models/textures.

Also, this generation is different (as is every generation). Microsoft is launching first and will have units out there for months before Sony releases in any territory unlike last time. Microsoft also isn't starting from zero mindshare this generation. Nintendo also has its unique controller which could help boost its sales (unique games, more games oriented for everyone). The only unique thing Sony has is Blu-Ray but that only guarantees the ability to load a large amount of crap on the disc which doesn't really bring much of anything to the table.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

I'd imagine that PS3 software would possibly cost more because companies can charge more for it, harder to program (correctly/well) the SPEs, harder to use more available hardware threads to optimize performance. Art costs should be similar unless Sony requires games to be able to run in 1080p and therefore need higher quality in game models/textures.

Also, this generation is different (as is every generation). Microsoft is launching first and will have units out there for months before Sony releases in any territory unlike last time. Microsoft also isn't starting from zero mindshare this generation. Nintendo also has its unique controller which could help boost its sales (unique games, more games oriented for everyone). The only unique thing Sony has is Blu-Ray but that only guarantees the ability to load a large amount of crap on the disc which doesn't really bring much of anything to the table.

Regarding difficulty, 1 core performance easier on xbox360 but multiple core performance very very hard no? Are there any developers planning on using more than 2 cores?

Regarding PS3 marketability, Blu-ray & 32:9 extra-widescreen output = hi-fi legitimacy. Many will buy purely for full HDTV hi-fi features. For gamers, game selection and graphics superior to both other consoles. Best alternative console will be Nintendo Revolution. Great design. But xbox360 will be successful and MS will cut price if sales slow down. Like Sony and PS3, MS sees its future dependant on console success. See how much money blown on Xbox program?

 

[Almasy]

The statements, as far as I can see, refer to PS3 not being too expensive for the final consumer, since I very much doubt there´s much difference in costs between PS3 and X360. I believe this is good, publishers SHOULD pressure Sony to keep the price contained, at $299 to be exact.

 

[Qroach]

exactly. anyone that thinks this statement from koei isn't related to the cost of the hardware for the consumer, needs to read the new snippet again.,

 

[msia2k75]

The statements, as far as I can see, refer to PS3 not being too expensive for the final consumer, since I very much doubt there´s much difference in costs between PS3 and X360. I believe this is good, publishers SHOULD pressure Sony to keep the price contained, at $299 to be exact.

$299 is very unlikely. $349 or $399 more certainly.

 

[<nu>faust]

i think the only unknown at this point regarding production costs of ps3 is the blu-ray drive implementation. According to sony, ps3's optical drive will be able to read both regular dvds and blu-ray discs, so this means that they will have a hybrid-optical drive(which uses both red and blue laser heads) for ps3 which is even gonna be costlier than implementing a regular blu-ray drive .

Also Microsoft and intel recently said that one of the main reasons that make them prefer hd-dvd was blu-ray consortiums inability to deliver actual units that have hybrid(bd-dvd) capabilities(they said those units only exist in sony labs) .The HD DVD camp obviously doesn't believe it will be as quick or cost effective to mass-produce BRD hybrids as it will be with their own format.


If sony sticks to their schedule of releasing ps3 around march 06, they will have to start producing these hybrid drives around december 06/jauary 07. If they dont even have actual units outside of their research labs by now, how are they going to make em ready for ps3's assembly line for december?

 

[ihamoitc2005]

blue laser

i think the only unknown at this point regarding production costs of ps3 is the blu-ray drive implementation. According to sony, ps3's optical drive will be able to read both regular dvds and blu-ray discs, so this means that they will have a hybrid-optical drive(which uses both red and blue laser heads) for ps3 which is even gonna be costlier than implementing a regular blu-ray drive .

Also Microsoft and intel recently said that one of the main reasons that make them prefer hd-dvd was blu-ray consortiums inability to deliver actual units that have hybrid(bd-dvd) capabilities(they said those units only exist in sony labs) .The HD DVD camp obviously doesn't believe it will be as quick or cost effective to mass-produce BRD hybrids as it will be with their own format.

But HD-DVD uses blue laser too. So similar dual laser needed for HD-DVD/DVD hybrid drive no? Then costs for hybrid drives not so different between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Looks like politics, nothing more.

 

[one]

So what are the similarities today? Basically the same two problems... increased media cost in regards to BluRay and increased cost of game development (combination of increased need for content and complexity of architecture compared to competitors).

1. increased media cost - release your PS3 games on DVD. Duh.
2. increased cost of game development - only if you want to create Killzone or MGS4. Or even Gears of War on Xbox360. Duh.

 

[<nu>faust]

But HD-DVD uses blue laser too. So similar dual laser needed for HD-DVD/DVD hybrid drive no? Then costs for hybrid drives not so different between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Looks like politics, nothing more.

well the thing is its a fact that hd-dvd is a closer technology to dvd than blu-ray is, so as much as ms's recent statement can be regarded a political move, producing hd-dvd,dvd hybrid is expected to be cheaper and easier than a bluray-dvd combo by most ppl in the industry anyways. The real question is how much cheaper and how easier?

 

[pipo]

...since I very much doubt there´s much difference in costs between PS3 and X360.

Even $50 is a lot when you are aiming to sell lots of consoles, although I think it's a lot more.

And on the PS3 BR 'advantage'; I'm not sure that it even is an advantage in the real world for at least a year or two...

 

[one]

well the thing is its a fact that hd-dvd is a closer technology to dvd than blu-ray is, so as much as ms's recent statement can be regarded a political move, producing hd-dvd,dvd hybrid is expected to be cheaper and easier than a bluray-dvd combo by most ppl in the industry anyways. The real question is how much cheaper and how easier?

Are you referring to media, or drive? If you are referring to hybrid media, it's not related to games. As for drives, where did you find HD-DVD drives are more affordable than BD drives?