Report: Developers are steering away from PS3

[pc999]

Who said, as a fact, that the competitor will _always_ have a pice advantage?
That take us back to my initial question: when and how could sony drop the price of the product?
It is not set in stone that the PS3 had to have a MRSP 66% higher than the one of its competitor.

It is not a fact, yet, but it is natural that PS3 will always cost more to produce than 360/Wii, which mean or higher price or higer/lower losses/proffit, it is true, like said before, that once both reach sub 200$ price it may not be a major problem yet at that time probably next gen race is already pretty much in its final shape.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

High production costs doesn't automatically equate t high retail price though - hence Vysez's point that it shouldn't be assumed XB360 will always have a rice advantage. eg. XB cost more to produce than PS2, but PS2 wasn't cheaper in the high street. If PS3's BOM drops considerbly to a similar price to XB360, or even a lot more, depending on returns elsewhere such as content downloads, Sony may be willing to underprice XB360. Though to be honest, I doubt Sony will ever consider pricing themselves less than the rivals. Cheap and Sony don't go hand in hand, in all markets

 

[expletive]

Thus when considering consoles, the buyer isn't looking at equal software libraries on two differently priced but similar machines. They're looking at two diffeent libraries with some original titles in each, and two differently priced machines with different functions.

You have to make the assumption that every buyer in this market cares about every function each machine offers first. If all the consumer cares about is playing games, the rest of the stuff is irrelevant. But i agree it does come down to the software and from what we've seen so far theres every reason to believe theyll be comparable, at least for the next few years.

The sure-fire 'I'll buy the cheaper console as it has exactly the same games library' argument doesn't exist, and the console gamers who pick XB360 over PS3 for no other reason than it being cheaper will likely be in the minority. The choice between machines is based on a lot of factors, none of which are predictable.

You reaslize theres a whole branch of social sciences that flies in the face this right?

And from that, we see the market could go absolutely any way, which means the consoles selling fairly equally isn't at all a safe assumption, and if they don't sell equally with one rushing ahead of the others, it will attract 3rd party exclusives. We don't know where the market will be in a year or two, so looking at the topic of software variety all we can look at is now and the upcoming titles, in which there most certainly is a difference in my eyes between platforms.

I agree but i think that Sony really didnt want to be in the position where people are saying "the market can go any way" at this point, given where they're coming from.

It will be a matter of preference, right now theres titles on both consoles i'm not willing to live without so i'll need to buy both.

 

[zed]

(holds up hand)
what makes the ps3 so expensive?
is it the cell or blu-ray (both soon to be manufactured in the multi millions) or rsx or just the whole package.
ala, im thinking ppl are over estimatling the cost of production ( dev costs are one off )

 

[scooby_dooby]

(holds up hand)
what makes the ps3 so expensive?
is it the cell or blu-ray (both soon to be manufactured in the multi millions) or rsx or just the whole package.
ala, im thinking ppl are over estimatling the cost of production ( dev costs are one off )

next-gen.biz just reported costs are over $750 each to manufacture. I don't think anyone is over estimating anything.

 

[pc999]

High production costs doesn't automatically equate t high retail price though - hence Vysez's point that it shouldn't be assumed XB360 will always have a rice advantage. eg. XB cost more to produce than PS2, but PS2 wasn't cheaper in the high street. If PS3's BOM drops considerbly to a similar price to XB360, or even a lot more, depending on returns elsewhere such as content downloads, Sony may be willing to underprice XB360. Though to be honest, I doubt Sony will ever consider pricing themselves less than the rivals. Cheap and Sony don't go hand in hand, in all markets

Yes, and MS lost 4 Billions $, like I said they will fell the higher cost production one way or anouther.Plus MS can also lower even more their price and in much better conditions than Sony (which is not very well from a financial POV today), there is limits to what can they get in return from their costs (I guess their are near them, after all they had 1,5% of proffit last gen) unless this is a really long term plan (which would mean a long time before we saw a PS4) or many more start to buy SW (meybe BR movies too) than those last gen.

Again, once they both hit prices of sub 200$ (meybe less?) this should have much less impact bu there will be a long time before that happen and I expect that at this time the market share is at least close to the final form.

They still have some good cards like: controller+free online+HDD only features+more cinematic games+well know exclussives+Linux+perifericals+brand name+BR+higher tech...

Lets see if they can make good use of them (althought some are hard to sell and/or others easy to copy), IMO it is how they will use those that will make them proffit or losses, not price (plus a good suport for PS2 is also important so they can keep peole from buying 360/wii).

 

[patsu]

(holds up hand)
what makes the ps3 so expensive?
is it the cell or blu-ray (both soon to be manufactured in the multi millions) or rsx or just the whole package.
ala, im thinking ppl are over estimatling the cost of production ( dev costs are one off )

next-gen.biz just reported costs are over $750 each to manufacture. I don't think anyone is over estimating anything.

I have no idea. It's difficult to estimate (especially in Asia) because unlike analysts, these large manufacturers have additional leverage and deep relationships with the suppliers. These tend to go beyond volume discounts (such that no/few outsiders are privy to). Plus Sony may manufacture more of these components themselves (like PSP).

Some of the issues (for launch) are the hard deadline, uncertainty and any last minute scramble that leaves little room for negotiation. The situation should improve incrementally beyond the launch.

The reported numbers may all come from the same source.

 

[AW0L]

Is the $750 cost to manufacture, all enclusive ? for instance does the 750 price tag include printing/packaging, shipping allocating to distributor/hubs, overhead, advertising and finally Tax!

ipod lowered alot of there overhead cost just by changing the package alone.

 

[patsu]

Hmm... I don't think so. Accounting-wise, it'd be "Cost of goods sold" if it includes distribution and packaging. "Cost of manufacturing" should be just the amount needed to make it.

 

[liolio]

I don't believe this reports about " Developers are steering away from PS3".
Or I don't understand it as "some games wil be cancelled".
In regard to most optimistic and pessimistic previsions on this board the PS3 "should" be in the 40/60% as far as marketshare is concerned.
I think what's behind all these talks (if true) is the ratio dev cost/marketshare and then in a less abstract manner exclusiver games vs mutiplateform ones and choosing the leading developpement plateform.
If the ps3 and xbox are closed, MS seems to offer slightly better dev tool (i want to add what the fuck are they doing with tiling...), MS will improved his XNA and allow easy port to pc (or from ) and thus a more important market and a leverage of devs costs.
All this is interesting but pointless we will see who owns the game after chrismass 2007...

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Hmm... I don't think so. Accounting-wise, it'd be "Cost of goods sold" if it includes distribution and packaging. "Cost of manufacturing" should be just the amount needed to make it.

Agreed, although one has to wonder whether an accountant is the one coming up with these figures.

Cost of manufacturing should include no overhead of any kind, only the cost of the components and the labor cost involved in their assembly. Which means if the cost of manufacturing is $750 and they sold the console for that price, they would lose money.

So it's very possible that ML's original estimates of $900 per PS3 is an accurate representation of the CoGS for the unit. Ofcourse, if that were the case, CoGS still doesn't factor in all overhead (only direct) costs, so they'd still be losing money even if they were selling the unit at that price.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

If the ps3 and xbox are closed, MS seems to offer slightly better dev tool (i want to add what the fuck are they doing with tiling...), MS will improved his XNA and allow easy port to pc (or from ) and thus a more important market and a leverage of devs costs.
.

Well, MS flatly stated this was their strategy for this generation. That the ease of development on the 360 would lower development costs, making the console a more attractive platform, and making it easier for developers to get more out of the 360 sooner.

(This was the same interview where they conceeded the point that the PS3 might ultimately be a more powerful machine, but by the time developers could harness the power to demonstrate its superiority, the lifecycle of the consoles would be nearing their ends)

 

[one]

Well, MS flatly stated this was their strategy for this generation. That the ease of development on the 360 would lower development costs, making the console a more attractive platform, and making it easier for developers to get more out of the 360 sooner.

Their strategy in this generation, and their strategy in the last generation too. Do they improve over the last generation in this regard?

As for the PS3, what's important is how long it takes to do enough R&D for the console. When GC and Xbox were released 1.5 year later than PS2, the R&D for PS2 was good enough and the ease of development in other platforms was almost negated. After the development know-how for PS3 reaches critical mass, development cost will depend mostly on the scale of content creation.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As for the PS3, what's important is how long it takes to do enough R&D for the console. When GC and Xbox were released 1.5 year later than PS2, the R&D for PS2 was good enough and the ease of development in other platforms was almost negated.

You think? I can't say I've ever heard that before, that once over the 1.5 year introductory learning period, PS2 was about as easy to develop for (with VUs and unconventional graphics engine and totally different strengths) as a single core x86 CPU and PC GPU running of DirectX. And that's ignoring the software tools. I don't think SN System's tools are as effective as MS's given comments, and I'm sure it wasn't within 2 years of PS2's launch.

From what I can tell, PS2 managed to attract the devs despite being a PITA to develop for it's whole life!

 

[one]

You think? I can't say I've ever heard that before, that once over the 1.5 year introductory learning period, PS2 was about as easy to develop for (with VUs and unconventional graphics engine and totally different strengths) as a single core x86 CPU and PC GPU running of DirectX. And that's ignoring the software tools. I don't think SN System's tools are as effective as MS's given comments, and I'm sure it wasn't within 2 years of PS2's launch.

From what I can tell, PS2 managed to attract the devs despite being a PITA to develop for it's whole life!

Hence "almost" as reservation I guess 1.5 years were enough for major developers to develop their own libraries for PS2, at least enough to create a sequel to their first PS2 titles by reusing what they had developed by their own by then. It's no doubt initial development cost is huge, but subsequent development just adds delta as seen in what Factor 5 told about core cost split between multiple projects at GDC 2006. People bought PS2 to play games developed by major console developers with resources to build their own engines. It doesn't apply to Xbox developers with strict PC lineage though.

Of course the number of the install base matters, but the ease of development as the relative advantage of other platforms must have been reduced in 1.5 years.

If you include personnel costs it's a different story, I assume PS2 developers are more costly than others, but it's compensated with software sales in the larger PS2 install base.

 

[Black Dragon37]

About this article?

Is this closer to the truth than we think? Smackdown vs. RAW 2007 was cancelled for PS3.

 

[ZiFF]

About this article?

Is this closer to the truth than we think? Smackdown vs. RAW 2007 was cancelled for PS3.

No, it was not. PAL-version is just coming to Europe in 2007.

http://www.gfdata.de/archiv07-2006-gamefront/juli-02.html

"WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 verschoben

11.07.06 - THQ gibt bekannt, dass das Sportspiel WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 für PS3 erst 2007 in Europa ausgeliefert wird. Die Versionen für Xbox 360, PS2 und PSP sollen hingegen schon im November 2006 in die Läden kommen."

People have already played it http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=142486

 

[Black Dragon37]

No, it was not. PAL-version is just coming to Europe in 2007.

http://www.gfdata.de/archiv07-2006-gamefront/juli-02.html

"WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 verschoben

11.07.06 - THQ gibt bekannt, dass das Sportspiel WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 für PS3 erst 2007 in Europa ausgeliefert wird. Die Versionen für Xbox 360, PS2 und PSP sollen hingegen schon im November 2006 in die Läden kommen."

People have already played it http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=142486

http://digitalbattle.com/2006/07/24/another-ps3-game-cancelled/

 

[Darkon]

http://digitalbattle.com/2006/07/24/another-ps3-game-cancelled/

Nextgen biz is reporting this

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3491&Itemid=2

Following various online rumors, the company issued a statement, saying that the game will not appear until late 2007. No explanation was given for the cancellation, though it may be that the firm sees PS3 as offering too few consumers, at too high a demographic, with too high development costs.

The statement read, "The next installment in our perennial SmackDown franchise is slated for release across multiple game systems this holiday. The highly anticipated WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 is scheduled to ship for Xbox 360, PSP and PlayStation 2 in November. Consistent with our goal of delivering the highest quality content across all next-gen platforms, we have decided to postpone the debut of the SmackDown series on PlayStation 3 until the holiday 2007

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So they're skipping a year. I can think of a few reasons why. 1 is to get to grips with PS3. Another is because the inital installed base won't be that high. A third is that within that installed base, there's a lot of other titles competing. A mediocre game amongst a few better games is more likely to go overlooked, and if the user base is too small, those that do buy won't be numerous enough.