RPG said:
Slimebeast said:
RPG said:
| Slimebeast said:
But then why don't MS go that route if it's really profitable?
And unlike a comparison to Nintendo, MS and Sony are very comparable in their gaming business - same size of console sales, same ambitions and target audience.
I think you're just hoping Sony's big budget titles are making money. But MS is one of the smartest software guys on the planet - if they saw there's money in having their own studios they would invest in it, not downsize.
|
I dont have to hope, if the numbers of this site are correct the first party games are making money. MS have kept Lionhead and Rare whom make games which sell, they know first party games are still important. Also Turn 10, the guys who make Forza have remained.
|
You still don't know. Let me remind you that most game publishers have a very hard time making a steady profit of more than 5% - for example Ubisoft, EA, and Take Two - despite being multiplatform.
What conclusions you draw from this? Well, one must be that many games published by Ubisoft, EA, TT lost money.
(and another that video game developing is a very competitive market and hard to make money in)
Whenever you read publisher press-releases like "Assassin's Creed was a huge success, but games like Prince of Persia failed to meet expecations" it's very likely that PoP lost money. Or "Madden had impressive sales, but Mirrors Edge sold a lot less than EA had projected" it's very likely that Mirrors Edge lost money.
Now, these kind of games still sell in the millions. But they also cost a lot to develop.
So I can only imagine that new IP from Sony like Resistance, Uncharted, Motostorm, Lair and Heavenly Sword and games like Ratchet - games that sell on average less than 1.5 mill - lost a lot of money.
Btw, Rare is a bad example of proof that 1st party is beneficial. Rare is a disaster for MS, not just because it cost insane amunt of money to aquire, but because it's a big ass studio (300 guys or so?) who don't have a clue about what the market and gamers want. I bet MS would get rid of Rare tomorrow if anyone just wanted to buy them.
|
It also seems you dont have a clue about how first party games work. Sony recieve a much larger amount of money from first party games compared to 3rd party games, that is why they make back money so quickly. On GAF it was posted where the $60 go and for first party games they get a huge proportion of the money, at least half if memory serves.
3rd party devs get a much smaller return, they have to pay the console company the game is on, get a smaller amount back etc so of course they will need more sales. Even games which sell 1 million for first parties make Sony at least $30 million back, pretty sure that is more than enough to cover costs. And that is the bombas, resistance and uncharted sold well over 1 million.
|
That don't matter. Sony is the publisher and the developer, so of course they get more money than a dev gets from each copy of game sold. But for example in the case of Ubisoft you've got the same situation - Ubisoft is both publisher and developer.
And I already told you publishers tend to make 5% in profit at the most (xcept for Nintendo and Activision) - and actually EA and Take Two has lost money for years - why would the individial studios be any different? So it's pretty safe to say that the profits overall are small - thus releasing your games on a single platform, halving the sales, should mean a big loss in revenue while the games still cost as much as a multiplatform to develop.
