I think the PS3's levels of software sales are doing well enough in NA alone to justify continued support.
The thing is, isnt it easier to develop ground up for the PS3, with higher initial costs, then port to the 360 and as such have two identical versions? Im sure this is how COD4 was done because the versions are practically the same, unless they somehow managed to port it from the 360 with no hitches but it would have been a first.

Also, Like many have pointed out its the exclusives that are struggling. R&C and Uncharted have broken the mould a little bit and are actually selling okay, though originally it looked as if R&C would do terribly its maintained its sales since release really.

I imagine uncharted hitting 1 mil early next year and R&C following soon after.

Bodhesatva said: takeru51 said: I thought I read (from Reggie Fils-Aime, so it could be biased) that it was somewhere in the range of 500,000-1,000,000 sales required to break even on the bigger titles. This would be for an exclusive title. I'm talking about games on 360/PS3, and whether simply making these games de facto 360 exclusives would be a good choice. My analysis says: no. And as others have pointed out, Europe is a whole different bag of cards. Absolutely, that should be factored in, and furthers cements the PS3 as a legitimate multi-platform option.

Most studios agree that multiplatform is a good policy for making money.  It's an official EA policy, I believe, to put their games on as many platforms as make financial sense.  They have many other policies that don't necessarily lend themselves to high quality games, such as releasing many of their franchises every single year or every other year regardless of whether they're ready.  Look at the NFS franchise: they're racing games that have significant framerate problems.  I hate that, but it's good enough for the average gamer.

There is, however, a more significant problem in the gaming industry right now.  A lot of decent-selling games aren't making a profit, and not enough games sell well.  EA believes that consumers have rejected the $60 price point and that something needs to be done.  Developers have been complaining about the PS3's poor sales, and other devs have suggested that both MS and Sony need to release $199 machines.

The availability of a $199 machine, the devs hope, will increase their sales by increasing the installed base.  The problem is that more of the people purchasing a system for $199 are likely to buy bargain games, or buy fewer full priced games.  They're less likely to use the system as much overall -- a more expensive system will preclude the less hardcore spenders.  It would preclude most of the people who'd like to have a game system to play with sometimes.

The problems are game cost and game price.  The games cost too much to develop, and they're priced too high for normal consumers to purchase as many as the industry would like to sell.  This is definitely something that needs to be resolved.  I think the first step will be for MS, Sony and Nintendo to take smaller royalties.  This is especially important for Sony and Microsoft, who have very high priced games and larger royalties.  It will make generating a profit harder for them, but they need to meet the publishers half way.

Famine said: omgwtfbbq said: Comparing a launch game (Resistance) and a launch and bundled game (Motorstorm, was launch in Europe where it seems to have got most of its sales) sales curve to a game that was released one year after release is meaningless. The sales curves are completely different. Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that it took both games a few more months to cross over the 1 million mark. Ratchet has been out for 2 months, and Uncharted has been out for a month.

Your point being?

Both games took a long time to break 1 million because they were launch games. Launch games have a slower start and a slower drop-off because there are less people who own the console. Using these games as predictions for how Uncharted and Ratchet will sell are meaningless. 

outlawauron said: omgwtfbbq said: Famine said: --OkeyDokey-- said: multiplats are doing fine on the ps3 (well most of them) its exclusives that are most likely having a hard time breaking even with development costs. heavenly sword for example, is one of the biggest budget games this generation and at 600, 000 sold so far, it doesn't look like it will end up making much if any profit for the developer. ratchet and clank is another example, this game was apparently insomniac's biggest project yet and sales have been crushingly dissapointing so far. developers won't stop making multiplats for the ps3, but i have a feeling theres not going to be many 3rd party exclusives if this continues. Resistance took awhile before finally nudging the 1 million mark. The same thing with Motorstorm. I don't know about Heavenly Sword since that has been out longer, but Ratchet and Uncharted could get to 1 million, but it will still take a little time. Comparing a launch game (Resistance) and a launch and bundled game (Motorstorm, was launch in Europe where it seems to have got most of its sales) sales curve to a game that was released one year after release is meaningless. The sales curves are completely different.   You realize that both games broke 1 mil BEFORE being bundled right?

I thought so for Resistance, but I was pretty sure Motorstorm was bundled in Europe pretty close to its release. 

 

Famine said: Well if one were to look at Capcom's approach, as well as the guys behind Burnout: Paradise, then making multi-platform games doesn't seem to be troublesome. CoD4 also seems like a good valid point. I just think it all depends with the minds working at said developers. One developer may know how to work their magic on one console, and find the other to be a "stonewall," whereas another developer can make both versions both shine. I heard that making games on the PS3 first and then porting them on the 360 is actually cheaper, and I don't know if this is true, but if it is... WTF man? Maybe it does depend on the developer.

I'd imagine that'd be because the PS3 is such a pain to program for. It's an old psychological trick. Most people will put more effort to a project when they start and towards the middle then when they finish when they have a deadline. So by putting the hardest work ahead of you at the start you are more likely to be able to get it done quickly as it'd be "fresh"... while after that adapting it to the 360 would be all smooth sailing. You just need to make sure the PS3 version doesn't have a lot of unoptimized code. As for PS3 exclusives. It's obvious to me why they're selling less. Less word of mouth. I missed out on a crapload of good gamecube games last generation but got all the big PS2 games. The reason? My friends were talking all about the PS2. When the average Joe goes out and hangs out with his friends they arn't talking about uncharted, they don't have PS3's. They're talking about Mass Effect and COD4. Jim knows COD4 is coming to PS3 too and his friends are talking it up, so he gets it. That's why I think Sony should be focusing more on single game commercials instead of their current adds... to build up more of a "Buzz" factor. There current commercials are more "Reminder" ones... remember MGS5, GT etc... it doesn't work if you don't have people talking about the products.

Great analysis though Bod.