I can tell you for a fact, this makes minimal difference to indy level developers. Its still $10kUS (!) for a devkit - Wii devkits start from $2k.

The real killer is this:
- the PS3 has by far the smallest install base
- its by far the most complex of the consoles to develop for

From a business point of view, its either WiiWare or XBLA (and I tilt to WiiWare for various reasons). PSN isn't even on the radar - maybe in 2 or 3 years.

Its really hard to come with a business model that allows development of a PS3 exclusive. It either has to be an absolute, top-of-the-line project, with a 30m US budget + 3-4 year dev period - or plain out subsidized by Sony.

The numbers simply don't work out.

(better off making a 360 title, and once its out - sending it to a PS3 porting house)

@bbsin: How long did MP3 take time to develope? I know TP took 4 years, because it was delayed 2 years until Wii release.
But, you're on the right track, basically you can spend money forever for a single games developement, despite the platform. It only depends on how much do you have to finalize it and most of the work goes to work on the graphics. Now, you could do GT Pro Series on the PS3, it would be cheap and just upscale the graphics to HD. Right? Well, wrong. Sony propably has some requirements considering the visuals and if you want to sell your game with graphics (which the PS3 is all about, as a gaming machine), you need to make games graphically on par with other titles.

As you can see, history repeates itself. I remember when PS fanboys said that PS3 will crush it's competition at it's release.

hmm interesting just watched it now it's a ps2 trailer no??

Point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter  how good sony consoles are people like yourself will always talk trash about it.  I bet if wii came out with a dvd add on you would say it's the best thing out.

I'd imagine some PSN games are very profitable. Super Stardust HD has over 80k in sales.

82k x 9.99 = $820,000.

I've no idea how much it cost to make, but I'd have to imagine that's very profitable.

Making dev kits cheaper will only increase profitability.

Yes the PS3 userbase is smaller, meaning there are less games available for the PSN. The PS3 (which is doing better than the 360 was at the same time in the life cycle) will profit from this because every new PSN game will have less competition and will not get lost in the shuffle.
Plus in my book it doesn't get any better than "Everyday Shooter"
3rd place has never been so sweet..

Every little bit helps, and that is all that matters even if its still terribly expensive. That said this move should help to increase developer profits, or at the very least reduce the losses.

A few comments:

1. The cut for the software kit is for all 3rd party developers, not just the indie developers of small games.

2. The price cut is probably able to happen because the PS3 has been getting more games coming to it. More games means that Sony will be able to spread the cost of the software kit amongst more companies, thereby creating a situation where it would be able to reduce prices. Although this may be true, cutting the price in half is a BIG price cut for developers, so Sony is also probably selling these at quite a bit below cost.

w00t, development kit dropped by $10,000. too bad the game cost $10,000,000 to make (or more).

That's the hitch.  To make a "good" PS3 game that will appease the "hardcore" gamers costs a fortune.  So much so that this cut is merely a drop in the bucket.

And the title of this thread is widly misleading.