GT6 Sales Discussion

[Zer0]

So that's a no you can't provide anything to back up your claim, not a big surprise at all.

Your claim was quite clear, why are you now making it so woolly?

Now how about those sources for your claim that GT7 would sell 3.3 million (circa and in place of the lack of detail from you) that would otherwise have not been bought. As your post above is a distraction from you actually providing that information, as I gave you a pass on those figures in my rough breakdown (a point you either missed, ignored or failed to actually understand).

So once again please provide a source that helps support the factual claim you made (oh and I wasn't daft enough to make a factual claim before you try that old chestnut - I merely provided indicative figures that you omitted).

I already have explained that my point was not in the earnings per console, that was your point against my argument and I don't need to prove anything in that regards. It can be $0 gains per console and will not make any difference to my point.

My point is very easy to understand but I have no problem to explain the basics of the potential revenues of a free GT in PS4 installed by default and ready to plug and play. And in before you start to picking and asking for proves I have to remind you that this is a speculative thread and an opinion of a theoric situation that will never happen and can not proven right or wrong, just plausible or not.

Actual PS4 sales = 13,5M in a year
Potential GT7 install base in 1 year = 13,5M of units

If 10% of the 13.5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $6,75M
If 10% of the 13.5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $13,5M

Estimated PS4 sales in three years = 13,5x3 = 40,5M
Potential GT7 install base in 3 years = 40,5M of units

If 10% of the 40,5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $20,25M
If 10% of the 40,5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $40,5M

Etc...

And I'm being super conservative with those numbers, not taking in account the consoles sold thanks to that free GT, the revenues of potential DLC or other games bought thanks to those consoles, the cost of a worldwide marketing campaign with a similar impact for the console image, counting only a super low rate of 10% of the total of PS4 owners as DLC buyers and considering a cheaper DLC option and only 1 DLC bought per user in its lifetime as a GT player. With just a few increased numbers, still in a conservative margin, the revenues would multiple with ease. Even after some years a pretty cheap special offer of $1 for all the GT7s previously released content will suposse an inmense revenue. For example with a 60M PS4 install base a $1 offer will cash $30M with only 50% of the PS4 owners. All that aside of the previous GT userbase that with a free game will probably have no problem to expend some money in DLCs.

There are many possibilities to exploit that potential HUGE base with the installed game. And I don't mean a GT7 based heavily in DLC to advance, just addons like were in GT5 but in a more constant rate.

See the link above, a quote from the developer stating development costs (your link for GTA5 clearly states that it covers both), links relating to the $60 million cost all state development and a number of them (google away if you don't like mine) state that it doesn't include marketing (and why would PD comment on an area they don't pay for - publishers pay for distribution - take a look at the movie industry that's the way that actually works). Had this figure not come from PD you might have a point, but it did.

Ok as expected, is not important but I was curious about some proof.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It will be interesting to see the sales on X1 and PC and how it stacks up against the competition on those platforms, but on PS4 it should be a slam dunk. I imagine anyone who has a PS4 and would buy GT7 will pick up pCARS, because why wouldn't you? There's literally no other options.

pCARS doesn't compete with GT now, but it doesn't have to. The mistake for GT is letting them get a foot in the door. If pCARS does well enough to justify an increased budget for a sequel, it could very well grow into something with a car and feature list that could threaten GT.

The very best thing that could happen to GT and the sim driving/racing genre in general, is an uber successful Project Cars IMO which is why I'm pulling so hard for it. Nothing will light a fire under Kaz's butt like some real competition on the PS platform for the casual and hardcore player alike, something they have never really faced. Technically Forza was competition but not in the same way, as you couldn't just buy the game and drive, you had to buy the console and maybe different peripherals to experience the game, which creates a huge barrier to entry. But with direct competition on the PS4 it's us gamers that will reap the benefits of two titans going head to head, trying to create the most expansive, beautiful awesome game in order to maintain and/or grow their market share. It's a win/win for everyone if PCars does well and every fan of GT7 would do well to upgrade to the PS4 and get their teeth into PCars and find out what they've been missing in terms of simulation, immersion and a real racing experience.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I already have explained that my point was not in the earnings per console, that was your point against my argument and I don't need to prove anything in that regards. It can be $0 gains per console and will not make any difference to my point.

My point is very easy to understand but I have no problem to explain the basics of the potential revenues of a free GT in PS4 installed by default and ready to plug and play. And in before you start to picking and asking for proves I have to remind you that this is a speculative thread and an opinion of a theoric situation that will never happen and can not proven right or wrong, just plausible or not.

Actual PS4 sales = 13,5M in a year
Potential GT7 install base in 1 year = 13,5M of units

If 10% of the 13.5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $6,75M
If 10% of the 13.5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $13,5M

Estimated PS4 sales in three years = 13,5x3 = 40,5M
Potential GT7 install base in 3 years = 40,5M of units

If 10% of the 40,5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $20,25M
If 10% of the 40,5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $40,5M

Etc...

And I'm being super conservative with those numbers, not taking in account the consoles sold thanks to that free GT, the revenues of potential DLC or other games bought thanks to those consoles, the cost of a worldwide marketing campaign with a similar impact for the console image, counting only a super low rate of 10% of the total of PS4 owners as DLC buyers and considering a cheaper DLC option and only 1 DLC bought per user in its lifetime as a GT player. With just a few increased numbers, still in a conservative margin, the revenues would multiple with ease. Even after some years a pretty cheap special offer of $1 for all the GT7s previously released content will suposse an inmense revenue. For example with a 60M PS4 install base a $1 offer will cash $30M with only 50% of the PS4 owners. All that aside of the previous GT userbase that with a free game will probably have no problem to expend some money in DLCs.

There are many possibilities to exploit that potential HUGE base with the installed game. And I don't mean a GT7 based heavily in DLC to advance, just addons like were in GT5 but in a more constant rate.


Ok as expected, is not important but I was curious about some proof.

How do you factor in the potential loss of $300-500Million of lost revenue to Sony on GT sales (10 million units at $30-50 conservatively) on top of the $60Million cost to PD whether the game is free or not?

 

[Tornado]

I already have explained that my point was not in the earnings per console, that was your point against my argument and I don't need to prove anything in that regards. It can be $0 gains per console and will not make any difference to my point.

My point is very easy to understand but I have no problem to explain the basics of the potential revenues of a free GT in PS4 installed by default and ready to plug and play. And in before you start to picking and asking for proves I have to remind you that this is a speculative thread and an opinion of a theoric situation that will never happen and can not proven right or wrong, just plausible or not.

Actual PS4 sales = 13,5M in a year
Potential GT7 install base in 1 year = 13,5M of units

If 10% of the 13.5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $6,75M
If 10% of the 13.5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $13,5M

Estimated PS4 sales in three years = 13,5x3 = 40,5M
Potential GT7 install base in 3 years = 40,5M of units

If 10% of the 40,5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $20,25M
If 10% of the 40,5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $40,5M

Etc...

And I'm being super conservative with those numbers, not taking in account the consoles sold thanks to that free GT, the revenues of potential DLC or other games bought thanks to those consoles, the cost of a worldwide marketing campaign with a similar impact for the console image, counting only a super low rate of 10% of the total of PS4 owners as DLC buyers and considering a cheaper DLC option and only 1 DLC bought per user in its lifetime as a GT player. With just a few increased numbers, still in a conservative margin, the revenues would multiple with ease. Even after some years a pretty cheap special offer of $1 for all the GT7s previously released content will suposse an inmense revenue. For example with a 60M PS4 install base a $1 offer will cash $30M with only 50% of the PS4 owners. All that aside of the previous GT userbase that with a free game will probably have no problem to expend some money in DLCs.

There are many possibilities to exploit that potential HUGE base with the installed game. And I don't mean a GT7 based heavily in DLC to advance, just addons like were in GT5 but in a more constant rate.


Ok as expected, is not important but I was curious about some proof.

Should long time GT players expect "evolution and polish" with the second console release GT games, or should they expect a return to something approaching the original status quo despite two and a half years of improvements to the first console release GT game because of vague "system limitations" PD were apparently incapable of planning for?

 

[Imari]

And I'm being super conservative with those numbers...

No, you're not. 10% conversion for a freemium game is very much at the high end of what could be expected.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/04/should-your-startup-go-freemium/

Typical freemium companies convert between 1 percent and 10 percent of users into eventual paying customers. As a result, it’s important that a freemium product has both (a) low marginal costs and (b) minimal sales and marketing expenses. Because the vast majority of users don’t pay, a freemium company will struggle if its product is expensive to market, deliver or support. Your product needs to sell itself and attract loyal users based purely on its own merits and without a large marketing budget.

 

[Zer0]

How do you factor in the potential loss of $300-500Million of lost revenue to Sony on GT sales (10 million units at $30-50 conservatively) on top of the $60Million cost to PD whether the game is free or not?

You are counting disc sales, most of that revenues are already lost with the distribution and packaging.

No, you're not. 10% conversion for a freemium game is very much at the high end of what could be expected.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/04/should-your-startup-go-freemium/

We are talking about GT, not a random game that no one knows or want to play except for being free.

 

[another_jakhole]

@Zer0, are you seriously considering it would be a good move? Only asking because I think that's what they're arguing against.


To me, it just looks like you're making the point against GT not being as strong as it should, or used to, be. I'm not seeing how what you're proposing is in any way plausible (though you do say it is, but in a different sense) in the grand scheme of things.

No, you're not. 10% conversion for a freemium game is very much at the high end of what could be expected.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/04/should-your-startup-go-freemium/

Freemium games aren't Gran Turismo.
This is why I cared to intervene to see where everyone's point-of-view is coming from.


Edit -
To show some parity, it is true that with Zer0's hypothetical proposal, the development costs to maintain the standard of PD's way wouldn't be cut.

But if anything, I do remember someone mentioning Gran Turismo HD was intended to be a "pay as it goes" kind of idea; in other words, pay for extra bundles of content as time goes on in the development process with a free download that starts off with the few necessities of a GT game (racing game).


Speaking to myself:
I'm not getting into this. I said what I said. Now just go. Don't look back. Keep walking. Steady. Steeeeaaaady.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are counting disc sales, most of that revenues are already lost with the distribution and packaging.

We are talking about GT, not a random game that no one knows or want to play except for being free.

I didn't say anything about disc sales but do you have figures for distribution and packaging to confirm they eat up most of that $30-50? No you don't because they don't exist. Distribution and packaging in this day and age are peanuts. I'd be surprised if it cost more than a single dollar for packaging and shipping a disc door to door from Japan to North America. Bulk carrier shipping costs are so low these days it almost doesn't factor into costs. That's how we get $10 toasters from China isn't it?

 

[Zer0]

@Zer0, are you seriously considering it would be a good move? Only asking because I think that's what they're arguing against.


To me, it just looks like you're making the point against GT not being as strong as it should, or used to, be. I'm not seeing how what you're proposing is in any way plausible (though you do say it is, but in a different sense) in the grand scheme of things.

It could be a risky move that could end with some unexpected greats incomings and an increase of the community and game interest. I consider it safe enought to recover the development cost in the worst of the cases... anyway it would be something experimental, is not that I prefer this move than the normal disc distribution.

The arguing started as a point to show the strenght of the franchise even with no disc sales incomings, the worst case for Sony and PD, but not as an example of weakness. GT7 should have not a problem to sell many more units than GT6, the factors will be very different and more favourable towards a new GT.

I didn't say anything about disc sales but do you have figures for distribution and packaging to confirm they eat up most of that $30-50? No you don't because they don't exist. Distribution and packaging in this day and age are peanuts. I'd be surprised if it cost more than a single dollar for packaging and shipping a disc door to door from Japan to North America. Bulk carrier shipping costs are so low these days it almost doesn't factor into costs. That's how we get $10 toasters from China isn't it?

Choose:
http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2011/04/29/how-your-60-video-game-is-chopped-up/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html

 

[Tornado]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html

Um... $4 out of a $45 revenue stream is "most of the revenues"?

 

[Imari]

Freemium games aren't Gran Turismo.

It is if it's being marketed as a free-to-download game whose revenue then comes from selling DLC or other paid items.

That's exactly what freemium is. That the game in question would happen to be called Gran Turismo doesn't change a thing about how likely people are to spend money on it or how much money they would spend. That's not how statistics work.

It might be the case that people would spend more on Gran Turismo than they would on Candy Crush, but there is no way you can assume that without any data.

GT7 should have not a problem to sell many more units than GT6, the factors will be very different and more favourable towards a new GT.

What factors are those?

 

[Tornado]

It is if it's being marketed as a free-to-download game whose revenue then comes from selling DLC or other paid items.

That's exactly what freemium is. That the game in question would happen to be called Gran Turismo doesn't change a thing about how likely people are to spend money on it or how much money they would spend. That's not how statistics work.

It might be the case that people would spend more on Gran Turismo than they would on Candy Crush, but there is no way you can assume that without any data.

Plus, I don't think we ever did hear why the Gran Turismo game that was almost exactly that which Sony spent 6 months hyping was cancelled soon after the PS3 released. Was it because of the huge backlash the game got on a conceptual level (coinciding with how popular it was to bash Sony at the time)? Or was it simply because Kaz didn't want his time spread across three different projects?

 

[Zer0]

What factors are those?

PS4 + GT will be enought factors to make a BIG difference in the product and the only needed to generate more interest/sales.

*With "distribution and packaging" I mean all the expenses that are cut from the publisher earnings in order to put a disc game version on the shelves for sale, not the cost of the cardboard and "gas" needed to ship the games.

 

[Tornado]

So when you said "distribution and packaging", you actually meant everything except distribution and packaging; and when you said "revenues," you actually meant "gross profit". It helps if you use the words that actually mean what you are claiming.




Which based on the two wildly differing sets of numbers you provided, still falls under the lower side of Johnnypenso's "$30-$50" price range. So what was your point again?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

What factors are those?

I imagine they begin and end with "because it's zer0's favourite game".

Has someone so desperate to grab at straws now resorted to an argument that a freemium Gran Turismo would be a success? Someone that has the gall to ask @Scaff to provide sources, but when faced with sources that directly oppose this silly freemium argument (like the essential fact that that business model has a very low conversion rate) responds with, literally, "because it's Gran Turismo".

Because "because it's Gran Turismo" sure hasn't worked for GT6's success.

 

[trustjab]

Your 'if' was in relation to development costs, not to profit margin, but its nice to know that you seem to be pulling these figures out of thin air.

Now as far as GT5 cost to develop, its was circa $60 million, as stated by PD......


http://kotaku.com/5397660/how-much-did-gran-turismo-5-cost-to-make


....and as such that would be development only. PD do not market or distribute the GT series, Sony do.




So that's a no you can't provide anything to back up your claim, not a big surprise at all.

Your claim was quite clear, why are you now making it so woolly?

My claim? I never presented my post as fact. Here are my words-

Even if GT5 & 6 both cost $100 million to produce or its their total budget of $200 million, to break even at $20 profit per game, they'd need 10 million copies sold between the two.

Not sure where I said in that post those are exact. I said to break even if their total budget was $100million for each. How is that 'woolly'? Im not trying to throw out false information. The posts before mine were talking $100 million spent on gt5. Thats why I used that number. I used $20 profit for each copy sold to equal 10 million in sales because that figure is threshold GT5 reached. Thats why I said hypothetical. Thanks for the links. $60 million is a lot lower than $100 million, but still hefty!

 

[Tornado]

You're responding to a part of Scaff's post that wasn't directed at you.

 

[Imari]

PS4 + GT will be enought factors to make a BIG difference in the product and the only needed to generate more interest/sales.

So why were those factors apparently insufficient for GT6? I'm not seeing how the factors are so different, PS4+GT vs. PS3+GT. All that's changed is that the game has moved onto a new console.

Are you really trying to say that the only reason that GT6 sold poorly is because it was on PS3? It didn't seem to slow GT5 down much.

 

[trustjab]

You're responding to a part of Scaff's post that wasn't directed at you.

That happens sometimes on those big jobs.

 

[Johnnypenso]

My claim? I never presented my post as fact. Here are my words-


Not sure where I said in that post those are exact. I said to break even if their total budget was $100million for each. How is that 'woolly'? Im not trying to throw out false information. The posts before mine were talking $100 million spent on gt5. Thats why I used that number. I used $20 profit for each copy sold to equal 10 million in sales because that figure is threshold GT5 reached. Thats why I said hypothetical. Thanks for the links. $60 million is a lot lower than $100 million, but still hefty!

The $60Mill figure is from 2009. Eurogamer and others say it's actually $80Million:

 

[JKgo]

................This here feels more and more like a slugging match deep into 8th round at Caesar's, not a discussion....I think I'll take my leave right about now...

 

[Zer0]

So why were those factors apparently insufficient for GT6?

GT6 was developed in PS3 not PS4.

I'm not seeing how the factors are so different, PS4+GT vs. PS3+GT. All that's changed is that the game has moved onto a new console.

To understand what can represent a future hardware jump in the series you need to look back at the same situation in the past. PS2+GT4 vs PS3+GT5. The increase of the hardware resources will be in the same order of magnitude for the future PS4+GT7 vs PS3+GT6. I can't imagine the results, exciting times for sure.

Are you really trying to say that the only reason that GT6 sold poorly is because it was on PS3? It didn't seem to slow GT5 down much.

No, isn't the only reason but one valid reason given the time frame. GT5 was in a more favourable time frame and is very well known that traditionally the first full GT in the generation sells always more than the second title.

 

[Imari]

GT6 was developed in PS3 not PS4.

PS4 is not some magical box that makes everything better simply by virtue of running on it. You need some actual logic here beyond "but PS4".

Why is a game developed for PS4 such a shoe-in for increased sales over one on PS3?

To understand what can represent a future hardware jump in the series you need to look back at the same situation in the past. PS2+GT4 vs PS3+GT5. The increase of the hardware resources will be in the same order of magnitude for the future PS4+GT7 vs PS3+GT6. I can't imagine the results, exciting times for sure.

Was there some massive increase in sales between GT4 and GT5 that I'm unaware of? You're trying to draw a parallel where none exists.

No, isn't the only reason but one valid reason given the time frame. GT5 was in a more favourable time frame and is very well known that traditionally the first full GT in the generation sells always more than the second title.

I think you're yet to establish it's validity.

Just saying "because old hardware" doesn't really explain anything. The Last of Us sold just fine. GTA V sold just fine. So why was GT6 hit so hard by this thing of being on old hardware?

And why do you think that new hardware will somehow change this? I mean, people don't not buy a good game because it's on a system that they already own that happens to be outdated, as seen by TLoU and GTAV. There has to be actual reasons beyond the hardware, even though those reasons may be caused by or related to the hardware.

So what are the things that stopped people buying GT6, that you think will be solved by moving to newer hardware? Be specific.

 

[Scaff]

I already have explained that my point was not in the earnings per console, that was your point against my argument and I don't need to prove anything in that regards. It can be $0 gains per console and will not make any difference to my point.

You didn't 'explain' anything of the sort.

My point is very easy to understand but I have no problem to explain the basics of the potential revenues of a free GT in PS4 installed by default and ready to plug and play. And in before you start to picking and asking for proves I have to remind you that this is a speculative thread and an opinion of a theoric situation that will never happen and can not proven right or wrong, just plausible or not.

Actual PS4 sales = 13,5M in a year
Potential GT7 install base in 1 year = 13,5M of units

If 10% of the 13.5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $6,75M
If 10% of the 13.5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $13,5M

Estimated PS4 sales in three years = 13,5x3 = 40,5M
Potential GT7 install base in 3 years = 40,5M of units

If 10% of the 40,5M pay $5 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $20,25M
If 10% of the 40,5M pay $10 for a GT7 DLC in its lifetime = $40,5M

Etc...

So you expect level demand for a product (which has never happened for a GT title ever - they have a large initial hit and then a long but rapidly decreasing tail) and also expect GT7 and all its DLC to cost less than GT5 to develop ($60 - $80 million)?

Now I know that maths is a subject that foxes you at times, but that really doesn't strike me as a of financial investment for Sony at all

And I'm being super conservative with those numbers, not taking in account the consoles sold thanks to that free GT,......

No you are being 'super' optimistic with these figures and have not even addressed the question I asked regarding PS4 unit increase sales, nor have you supplied a single source to validate a bit of this, oddly enough (and its a bit of a pattern) others have that undermine your claims.

......the revenues of potential DLC or other games bought thanks to those consoles, the cost of a worldwide marketing campaign with a similar impact for the console image, counting only a super low rate of 10% of the total of PS4 owners as DLC buyers and considering a cheaper DLC option and only 1 DLC bought per user in its lifetime as a GT player. With just a few increased numbers, still in a conservative margin, the revenues would multiple with ease. Even after some years a pretty cheap special offer of $1 for all the GT7s previously released content will suposse an inmense revenue. For example with a 60M PS4 install base a $1 offer will cash $30M with only 50% of the PS4 owners. All that aside of the previous GT userbase that with a free game will probably have no problem to expend some money in DLCs.

There are many possibilities to exploit that potential HUGE base with the installed game. And I don't mean a GT7 based heavily in DLC to advance, just addons like were in GT5 but in a more constant rate.

Remind us all again what have those DLC revenues been for the last full GT title?

Ok as expected, is not important but I was curious about some proof.

I'm going to be blunt here. I do not believe you for a moment.

You have once gain utterly failed to supply a single source to validate you claims, yet try and jump on me in regard to sources (sources that are the same as they were in a conversation you ran away from 18 months ago).

My claim? I never presented my post as fact. Here are my words-


Not sure where I said in that post those are exact. I said to break even if their total budget was $100million for each. How is that 'woolly'? Im not trying to throw out false information. The posts before mine were talking $100 million spent on gt5. Thats why I used that number. I used $20 profit for each copy sold to equal 10 million in sales because that figure is threshold GT5 reached. Thats why I said hypothetical. Thanks for the links. $60 million is a lot lower than $100 million, but still hefty!

And the point I'm making is that $20 profit over the life of a GT title is not even close to accurate.

GT6 may have retailed for $60 new, but now a year after launch its $30 (and has been for a while), which would make $20 wildly optimistic (your profit is not going to jump from 1/2 to 2/3 while the retail cost of the unit halves, not even in the most wildly optimistic model).

 

[Zer0]

You didn't 'explain' anything of the sort.

What I said:
"I have said many times, GT could be given for free installed with every PS4 and would still be a successful financial investment for Sony."

What you invented from the above:

A successful financial investment would require it to more than cover the cost of development and you believe that could be achieved simply in terms of increased sales of PS4's (so units that would not have been purchased without the inclusion of GT7 on PS4).

Citation required please, because these number of going to be rather interesting.

What I have replied:

What Sony wins with each sold console is what matter less, every console sold means a continuos income every time that a game or DLC is bought by that owner. And you know, at times companyes pay for very expensive image campaigns, without the need to sell any product. A free GT7 installed with every PS4 would have been one of the best adverts ever for the console and would imply many millions of GT7 online with a very nice potential of DLC revenues.

I already have explained that my point was not in the earnings per console, that was your point against my argument and I don't need to prove anything in that regards. It can be $0 gains per console and will not make any difference to my point.

And in before you start to picking and asking for proves I have to remind you that this is a speculative thread and an opinion of a theoric situation that will never happen and can not proven right or wrong, just plausible or not.

What you claim:

You didn't 'explain' anything of the sort.

What you insist:

So that's a no you can't provide anything to back up your claim, not a big surprise at all.

Your claim was quite clear, why are you now making it so woolly?

You have once gain utterly failed to supply a single source to validate you claims,

======

Ok, you win. Not worth the time.

 

[Scaff]

What I said:
"I have said many times, GT could be given for free installed with every PS4 and would still be a successful financial investment for Sony."

What you invented from the above:

What I have replied:



What you claim:


What you insist:


======

So you can't actually show what you claimed you could, that giving away GT would be a successful financial investment for Sony (unless you define successful as loosing money).

Ignoring any potential console gains undermines you point to an even greater degree and given that you didn't make that distinction in your original claim the question still stands as valid.

Please explain how a potential revenue of circa $40 million (your numbers - and they assume 90% of PS4 owners would both download GT7 and buy its DLC - which is an utter fantasy - when GT5's attach rate was 12.5%) would make financial sense given that GT5 cost a good $20 million more to make than that and PD's whole DLC strategy (that you are basing this on) has stalled?

Ok, you win. Not worth the time.

What a surprise, lets add it to the (growing) list. I await the claim (again) of bullying and misquoting in around six months time.

Lets be blunt, your claim is unsupported, wildly speculative and doesn't stand up to even a basic level of analysis. Its not about having the time, its about you not being able to support your claims (again).

 

[jimipitbull]

So you can't actually show what you claimed you could, that giving away GT would be a successful financial investment for Sony (unless you define successful as loosing money).

Ignoring any potential console gains undermines you point to an even greater degree and given that you didn't make that distinction in your original claim the question still stands as valid.

Please explain how a potential revenue of circa $40 million (your numbers - and they are at the upper end of the scale would make financial sense given that GT5 cost a good $20 million more to make than that and PD's whole DLC strategy (that you are basing this on) has stalled?




What a surprise, lets add it to the (growing) list. I await the claim (again) of bullying and misquoting in around six months time.

Lets be blunt, your claim is unsupported, wildly speculative and doesn't stand up to even a basic level of analysis. Its not about having the time, its about you not being able to support your claims (again).

Lets say, they provide the base game for free, then charged $5 - $10 per (on average) monthly update.

For ease of calculation 1 million people x $5 x 12 updates

Potentially, $60 million per year.

Myself, I'd probably pay $10 per update. Perhaps there's 2 million other people that would also pay $10 a month.

Potentially, $240 million per year

 

[Scaff]

Lets say, they provide the base game for free, then charged $5 - $10 per (on average) monthly update.

For ease of calculation 1 million people x $5 x 12 updates

Potentially, $60 million per year.

Myself, I'd probably pay $10 per update. Perhaps there's 2 million other people that would also pay $10 a month.

Potentially, $240 million per year

As has been pointed out already that assumes a take up rate that is well above anything that has been managed with Freemium games, your second example requires a 20% uptake based on 'selling' 10 million units, or more than twice the high water mark for this business model!

A point further supported by this, get 10% and you are at the very top of the conversion curve.

Keep in mind that Sony and PD have in the past looked at and rejected it (the original GTHD concept was exactly this), not to mention the track record with DLC.

Now lets look at some actual numbers to get a rough set of figures, GT5 had an adoption rate of approx 12.5% of PS3 users (80 million PS3's / 10 million GT5's roughly), 13.5 million PS4 have been sold, 12.5% of which is 1.68 million 'sales' of GT. A high adoption rate of 10% for DLC (and that is at the top end of the scale) would be 0.168 million purchases. Even at the option of a $120 a year subscription model (can you name another season pass that expensive) it would be $20.16 million.

Now this would scale at more PS4's are sold, but its nothing like the figures you are suggesting at all, even if PD launched two years from now (with an assumed PS4 base of around 40 million) and maintained a 12.5% attach rate, with 10% DLC hit and $120 a year subscription model its $60 million. Which is what GT5 cost to develop as a minimum. That would require them to make GT7 and support a years worth of DLC for less than GT5 cost to develop just to break even!

I've asked the question twice now of Zer0 and he has ignored it, and that is what exactly has PD's record of chargeable DLC for GT6 been like? It was stated that car and track packs would be regular for GT6 (after the sporadic nature of GT5) and all that PD have to bring in revenue for GT6 via DLC is credit packs!

For this to be a viable model it would require PD to support a DLC strategy that they have a track record of failing to achieve and also exceed all industry norms for that model.

That's not a recipe for a sound financial return at all.

 

[jimipitbull]

As has been pointed out already that assumes a take up rate that is well above anything that has been managed with Freemium games.

Keep in mind that Sony and PD have in the past looked at and rejected it (the original GTHD concept was exactly this), not to mention the track record with DLC.

I've asked the question twice now of Zer0 and he has ignored it, and that is what exactly has PD's record of chargeable DLC for GT6 been like? It was stated that car and track packs would be regular for GT6 (after the sporadic nature of GT5) and all that PD have to bring in revenue for GT6 via DLC is credit packs!

For this to be a viable model it would require PD to support a DLC strategy that they have a track record of failing to achieve and also exceed all industry norms for that model.

That's not a recipe for a sound financial return at all.

With PSPlus membership required for online, I don't think you could label Sony exclusives as freemium.

PD has a track record in (on average) monthly updates. They are known to have exceeded industry norms, raising the bar on several different occasions.

 

[Scaff]

With PSPlus membership required for online, I don't think you could label Sony exclusives as freemium.

PD has a track record in (on average) monthly updates. They are known to have exceeded industry norms, raising the bar on several different occasions.

Free to play games on PS4 do not require PS Plus to play online.

PD do not have a track record of monthly updates of the nature that would be expected by a subscription, they don't even manage to communicate what is coming well enough and certainly not in terms of chargeable for GT5 or GT6. In terms of DLC (which is what you are saying they would generate revenue from) they have fallen well short of industry norms not exceeded them(claims of monthly car and track packs for GT6 - remember that).

They would need to double the industry high-point for DLC take-up rates based on no evidence at all of them having done so in the past and having managed to produce zero paid for content for GT6, while doubling the attach rate of any GT title in the past!

You are making claims based on figures that you have simply pulled out of thin air while ignoring those based on the actual attach rates for the GT series and proven industry figures for DLC take up. Why is that?