By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Rumour : Insomniac going multiplateform

Trust me people this multiplatform game is just an experiment to see if they can profit from having games on Xbox 360 as well as PS3, if it does not work out, they can still rely on Sony because it's not like the exclusives will be going on Xbox 360



it's the future of handheld

PS VITA = LIFE

The official Vita thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=130023&page=1

Around the Network
Reasonable said:
Squilliam said:
Going multiplatform would probably kill their MO of releasing a game every year given the increased development effort and possibility for one or both consoles slowing them down. Furthermore they probably haven't got a clue as to how to reap a high performing engine out of the Xbox 360 as they have never touched the architecture. It'd take too much time to get up to speed and I relate this back to the first point that it would kill their ability to release a game a year.

That's a good point.  It's easy to forget their basic approach is different from most developers getting a game out every 2 to 3 years.  They release one a year like clockwork, which is clearly going to be easier working with one engine tuned to one platform.

It's also interesting to note their total sales since releasing Resistance 1 are 8.25 million units.  While, Resistance 1 apart, their titles seem to be selling approx 1.5 to 1.7 million each, the costs of their titles releasing 1 a year has got to be much less that the 2 to 3 years spent on most big titles.  8.25 million units isn't too shabby since Resistance was released in November 2006.

I suspect many who look at each title individually think their performance sucks, but that's basically over 8 million units (plus an unknown number of PSN downloads as well for Booty) in just over 3 years - and the latest ratchet game looks set to sell plenty more units as it's early in its lifecycle next to the previous one.

 

They were voted one of the best places to work several years running so that also comes into it as well. I suspect that any criticism of their performance should be leveled at their management level people for simply spending their resources in the wrong areas but at the same time they are showing obvious signs of growth so theres no need to be too harsh there.

Their campus has 200 people so considering a large comfortable environment condusive to earning 'best place to work awards' their operating costs may be around $20-25M per year. So based on the rate of sales they are probably earning a decent level of royalties to bank on from Sony even throughout this generation as 2nd party contracts only pay up once development costs are paid for. I can't say that their performance sucks as 1.5-1.7M is much higher than the benchmark 1M given to break even this generation.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Squilliam said:
Going multiplatform would probably kill their MO of releasing a game every year given the increased development effort and possibility for one or both consoles slowing them down. Furthermore they probably haven't got a clue as to how to reap a high performing engine out of the Xbox 360 as they have never touched the architecture. It'd take too much time to get up to speed and I relate this back to the first point that it would kill their ability to release a game a year.

That's a good point.  It's easy to forget their basic approach is different from most developers getting a game out every 2 to 3 years.  They release one a year like clockwork, which is clearly going to be easier working with one engine tuned to one platform.

It's also interesting to note their total sales since releasing Resistance 1 are 8.25 million units.  While, Resistance 1 apart, their titles seem to be selling approx 1.5 to 1.7 million each, the costs of their titles releasing 1 a year has got to be much less that the 2 to 3 years spent on most big titles.  8.25 million units isn't too shabby since Resistance was released in November 2006.

I suspect many who look at each title individually think their performance sucks, but that's basically over 8 million units (plus an unknown number of PSN downloads as well for Booty) in just over 3 years - and the latest ratchet game looks set to sell plenty more units as it's early in its lifecycle next to the previous one.

 

They were voted one of the best places to work several years running so that also comes into it as well. I suspect that any criticism of their performance should be leveled at their management level people for simply spending their resources in the wrong areas but at the same time they are showing obvious signs of growth so theres no need to be too harsh there.

Their campus has 200 people so considering a large comfortable environment condusive to earning 'best place to work awards' their operating costs may be around $20-25M per year. So based on the rate of sales they are probably earning a decent level of royalties to bank on from Sony even throughout this generation as 2nd party contracts only pay up once development costs are paid for. I can't say that their performance sucks as 1.5-1.7M is much higher than the benchmark 1M given to break even this generation.

Insomniac overall overhead with regards to development is well below most third party and even second party. Not only do they recycle engines (which can sometime be as much as half the development budget) but their contract with Sony easily nets theme some financial solvancy.

They also have a very consistent development cycle that ensure overall viability, as their game is release yearly on the clock, thus a maximum of 2 year cycle with around 100 empolyee (give or take depending on stage of development) which means the cost of mean power over time is well below most big budget development. 1.5 million units sold per game under these circumstance would make nice and profitable projects.

 




mibuokami said:
Squilliam said:

They were voted one of the best places to work several years running so that also comes into it as well. I suspect that any criticism of their performance should be leveled at their management level people for simply spending their resources in the wrong areas but at the same time they are showing obvious signs of growth so theres no need to be too harsh there.

Their campus has 200 people so considering a large comfortable environment condusive to earning 'best place to work awards' their operating costs may be around $20-25M per year. So based on the rate of sales they are probably earning a decent level of royalties to bank on from Sony even throughout this generation as 2nd party contracts only pay up once development costs are paid for. I can't say that their performance sucks as 1.5-1.7M is much higher than the benchmark 1M given to break even this generation.

Insomniac overall overhead with regards to development is well below most third party and even second party. Not only do they recycle engines (which can sometime be as much as half the development budget) but their contract with Sony easily nets theme some financial solvancy.

They also have a very consistent development cycle that ensure overall viability, as their game is release yearly on the clock, thus a maximum of 2 year cycle with around 100 empolyee (give or take depending on stage of development) which means the cost of mean power over time is well below most big budget development. 1.5 million units sold per game under these circumstance would make nice and profitable projects.

 

I was talking rough manpower vs sales of games per year. A general rule of thumb is $100k per employee per year so multiplied over the 200 employees you get about $20-25M dollars. I allowed for more because they are rated as one of the very best employers in the business so that might mean extra cost.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
mibuokami said:
Squilliam said:

They were voted one of the best places to work several years running so that also comes into it as well. I suspect that any criticism of their performance should be leveled at their management level people for simply spending their resources in the wrong areas but at the same time they are showing obvious signs of growth so theres no need to be too harsh there.

Their campus has 200 people so considering a large comfortable environment condusive to earning 'best place to work awards' their operating costs may be around $20-25M per year. So based on the rate of sales they are probably earning a decent level of royalties to bank on from Sony even throughout this generation as 2nd party contracts only pay up once development costs are paid for. I can't say that their performance sucks as 1.5-1.7M is much higher than the benchmark 1M given to break even this generation.

Insomniac overall overhead with regards to development is well below most third party and even second party. Not only do they recycle engines (which can sometime be as much as half the development budget) but their contract with Sony easily nets theme some financial solvancy.

They also have a very consistent development cycle that ensure overall viability, as their game is release yearly on the clock, thus a maximum of 2 year cycle with around 100 empolyee (give or take depending on stage of development) which means the cost of mean power over time is well below most big budget development. 1.5 million units sold per game under these circumstance would make nice and profitable projects.

 

I was talking rough manpower vs sales of games per year. A general rule of thumb is $100k per employee per year so multiplied over the 200 employees you get about $20-25M dollars. I allowed for more because they are rated as one of the very best employers in the business so that might mean extra cost.

Ahh I understand, I thought you'd consider the development cost base on examples rather than the number of employee. In either case, I do not believe Insomniac project break even at $1m sales, I think they break even below that mark by a significant figure. 




Around the Network
mibuokami said:
Squilliam said:

I was talking rough manpower vs sales of games per year. A general rule of thumb is $100k per employee per year so multiplied over the 200 employees you get about $20-25M dollars. I allowed for more because they are rated as one of the very best employers in the business so that might mean extra cost.

Ahh I understand, I thought you'd consider the development cost base on examples rather than the number of employee. In either case, I do not believe Insomniac project break even at $1m sales, I think they break even below that mark by a significant figure. 

It really depends on how the revenue is split and how they work out their contract. Unfortunately I have absolutely no idea but if I was pressed for a guess I would have to say they break even at about 900k give or take 50k because of other expenses like marketing etc.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
mibuokami said:
Squilliam said:

They were voted one of the best places to work several years running so that also comes into it as well. I suspect that any criticism of their performance should be leveled at their management level people for simply spending their resources in the wrong areas but at the same time they are showing obvious signs of growth so theres no need to be too harsh there.

Their campus has 200 people so considering a large comfortable environment condusive to earning 'best place to work awards' their operating costs may be around $20-25M per year. So based on the rate of sales they are probably earning a decent level of royalties to bank on from Sony even throughout this generation as 2nd party contracts only pay up once development costs are paid for. I can't say that their performance sucks as 1.5-1.7M is much higher than the benchmark 1M given to break even this generation.

Insomniac overall overhead with regards to development is well below most third party and even second party. Not only do they recycle engines (which can sometime be as much as half the development budget) but their contract with Sony easily nets theme some financial solvancy.

They also have a very consistent development cycle that ensure overall viability, as their game is release yearly on the clock, thus a maximum of 2 year cycle with around 100 empolyee (give or take depending on stage of development) which means the cost of mean power over time is well below most big budget development. 1.5 million units sold per game under these circumstance would make nice and profitable projects.

 

I was talking rough manpower vs sales of games per year. A general rule of thumb is $100k per employee per year so multiplied over the 200 employees you get about $20-25M dollars. I allowed for more because they are rated as one of the very best employers in the business so that might mean extra cost.

$100K per year sounds about right...just going based on some contract writing in the past.  The number can swing wildly of ofcourse with Senior guys getting up past $150K...and none of these figures included bonuses.  Yeah, people don't realize how expense personnel cost are, until you have to deal with it.  Take for example the new film Avatar...it had 800 people working on that thing at one period in the development process...WOW! 



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

heruamon said:

$100K per year sounds about right...just going based on some contract writing in the past.  The number can swing wildly of ofcourse with Senior guys getting up past $150K...and none of these figures included bonuses.  Yeah, people don't realize how expense personnel cost are, until you have to deal with it.  Take for example the new film Avatar...it had 800 people working on that thing at one period in the development process...WOW! 

At one time most of them were New Zealanders too! That makes it the 2nd best movie ever behind Lord of the Rings! Its unfortunate that sheep didn't make the cut for the film.

Btw it also includes the office, the chair, the building, the heating, the lighting etc and all those add up quickly. I think 100k might actually be a little too low and 125k might be closer to the truth given the losses this generation.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
heruamon said:

$100K per year sounds about right...just going based on some contract writing in the past.  The number can swing wildly of ofcourse with Senior guys getting up past $150K...and none of these figures included bonuses.  Yeah, people don't realize how expense personnel cost are, until you have to deal with it.  Take for example the new film Avatar...it had 800 people working on that thing at one period in the development process...WOW! 

At one time most of them were New Zealanders too! That makes it the 2nd best movie ever behind Lord of the Rings! Its unfortunate that sheep didn't make the cut for the film.

Btw it also includes the office, the chair, the building, the heating, the lighting etc and all those add up quickly. I think 100k might actually be a little too low and 125k might be closer to the truth given the losses this generation.

Point, though I'm pretty certain a significant portion of the advertising and promotion comes from Sony's pocket.




mibuokami said:

Point, though I'm pretty certain a significant portion of the advertising and promotion comes from Sony's pocket.

According to the 2nd party contracts I have seen the game has to break even before the developer starts earning royalties and that includes marketing.



Tease.