I hope PD haven't gone bust

[6 Cylinder]

I hope for more interesting threads

Bit rich coming from a guy who has posted 2 threads total, one of wich is about his transgender Bob..?

 

[Soundtrack]

I do however expect that GT6 sales will be drastically less than GT5's, which won't help that position (even if the game was likely made for much less than GT5). Considering the game's already had some sale prices attached to it, and doesn't have the insanely over-priced special editions the last game did, I don't see profits being significantly better, either.

Considering the quite late console cycle related release, it is possible Sony/PD aren’t expecting equaling GT5 unit-numbers in the first place.

As for the time-limited (?) price drop you mention how much of the retailer’s margin was affected compared to Sony/PD’s one? Did the PSN version of GT6 dropped price?

Talking of net "benefits" where goes that retailer’s margin on Sony’s store?

Not to mention DLC they barely scraped the surface with in 5 and is advertised with greater ambitions for the present iteration.

If GT6 is beta-testing anything, I’d be tempted to say it’s a modified business model. And they possibly have the a$$ets to take the risk. As you pointed, only time will tell how perilous the move was.

 

[Adamaw11]

The GT series becomes a reason to buy a playstation for many people.

They'd be stupid to pull the plug on Gran Turismo.
I only just bought a PS3 because GT6 came out.
If there's no GT7, I won't buy a PS4.

There's key things in the game that I've never been able to find in any other game - even the copy-cat franchises.

If they never bother to include the series 1 RX-7 (that was in GT2 as the RX7 GT turbo '83) or any other rare cult-car gems, I'll probably loose interest anyway.

 

[AXEofGOD]

I'm sure you do get it now.

It must be nice to always think you are the smartest person in the room, to always think you know better.
As per five pages ago you are still a condescending jerk. At least you came with some numbers this time. As to all your costs and scuffing off extra revenue, I disagree with you and what kaz says, of course he is going to say that, he can't alienate other car manufacturers. But of course you know better... Yeah I'm sure they just throw cash at GT academy without taking a cent from Nissan. And they also just put adverts for Castrol and Michelin into their own created tracks free of charge. Last week I saw them giving away games outside the local church. If ignorance is bliss, you must have the most blissful life east of the Mississippi River. I'm sure you think that GT academy isn't even considered it's own P&L center and if it was it would be operating well into the red. I like how you only used "vague suggestions" throughout your whole argument but when I do it once you jump all over it. As to my backtracking...HA...nice try, I was just trying to get you to understand why I didn't fully incorporate miniscule additional costs, but clearly you are too close-minded to grasp any concept other than your own. Say hi to your mom for me when you go upstairs for dinner.

 

[Swagger897]

Uncalled for. Once again, another thread that looms to be shut down by over postulating the negatives of everyone. I'm sure that as much emphasis and discovery tornado put into it is more than yours, as I can see exactly how many people operate on the forums. They claim to know their stuff but only find ways of backing it up by claiming "for self preservation" or other nonsense, as I too once found myself stumbling through means of such.

Anyways, these 8 pages now have suggested that PD and all alias are fine and quite frankly the thread should be closed as we all seem to have reached a conclusion this will turn into another Sebastian Vettle thread and and we will see history repeat itself...

 

[Tornado]

It must be nice to always think you are the smartest person in the room, to always think you know better.

It certainly helps when the alternative argument is hopelessly contradictory. "They are so successful that they can afford to spend money on a ton of advertising and events." "See, they made 500 million in net profit." "Oh wait, that's not even net profit." "Oh wait, that's not even how many they sold." "Oh, wait, the huge amounts of money they spend on advertising and events that I started my entire chain of arguments with is now inconsequential." "Oh, wait, that's still 500 million anyway because of financial consideration from sponsors that wasn't a factor until I brought it up just now."

As to all your costs and scuffing off extra revenue, I disagree with you and what kaz says, of course he is going to say that, he can't alienate other car manufacturers. But of course you know better... Yeah I'm sure they just throw cash at GT academy without taking a cent from Nissan. And they also just put adverts for Castrol and Michelin into their own created tracks free of charge. Last week I saw them giving away games outside the local church.

None of this looks like a location where a theoretical 200 million dollars would come from. Though it's cool that you think you can pick and choose what sources you have to follow with your argument. First you get to claim a wholesale price for your argument to be built around with no basis even though two numbers were provided earlier in the thread (that you obviously didn't read before talking about how "gangbusters" PD are) were ignored. Then you get to apply that cost to obviously incorrect sales numbers. Then you attempt to use the fact that you used the wrong sales number for your "calculations" as proof that I was wrong. Then you claim that the price didn't go down when I said it did so your wholesale price still applied. Then you claim that the original number was right anyway even though you used the wrong numbers because the money is coming from "product placement." Now you get to claim Kaz was lying in an interview where he answered a question directly related to that claim.


Anything to reach that half a billion, I suppose.

I like how you only used "vague suggestions" throughout your whole argument but when I do it once you jump all over it.

"GT5 hadn't sold 10 million copies anywhere near before GT5 stopped costing $60 in stores." is not a vague suggestion, because it hadn't; and you later helpfully explained why it hadn't in an ill-advised attempt to be clever. "Subtracting development costs from a wholesale price-based revenue number and presenting that as "net profit" completely ignores all distribution, marketing and production costs" is not a vague suggestion. The only vague suggestion I made was my first post in response to you.



"That original number was close to correct anyway because the money came from product placement" in response to the fact that the sales numbers you used to justify your argument were completely wrong because the numbers you used to get to it were not only is a vague suggestion, but a disingenuous one.

As to my backtracking...HA...nice try, I was just trying to get you to understand why I didn't fully incorporate miniscule additional costs, but clearly you are too close-minded to grasp any concept other than your own.

So I'm confused. $130 million dollars difference between the real best case scenario number using your formula and a number taking all probable costs into effect are "miniscule additional costs?" Or, for that matter, the $200 million difference in revenue between a number using the wrong sales total and a number found using a more correct sales total (that you also provided) that you refuse to acknowledge is a result of me being close minded? Some nice Hollywood Accounting. It's pretty telling that you spent the entire time complaining that I was pointing out the (massive) flaws in your numbers rather than providing my own; but when I do so (and two different sets of numbers, in fact; one to counter your initial statement of "profitability" directly and then a more detailed one more in line with what the profit margin would have been) you basically run away screaming that I have no reason to claim you're backtracking and that I'm closed minded rather than actual rebuking the numbers. Someone once told me that "Blindly belittling facts is for cowards." Interesting how well that applies to you since your numbers were actually challenged.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Yes, I did. Maybe the context was missed as it was a generalisation.

If their budget was $10million per year for the last 7 years, to cover just that portion to break even would be $1 profit from their total sales. Im not speculating on what their total amount of money spent is. Just the money needed to equal the budget over that period of time.

Except that's the budget for just one game, released in 2010, and you're looking at 15 years worth of sales to cover only the most recent 7 years work. That's a massive, massive simplification that overlooks so many things I can't list them all.

But I do not see pd going bust even if gt6's sales are 'low' for the series. There, I added my piece of mind.

We agree on that, however.

Considering the quite late console cycle related release, it is possible Sony/PD aren’t expecting equaling GT5 unit-numbers in the first place.

Oh, undoubtedly. Though now that I've spent a month with GT6, I can't figure out why it needed three years post-GT5 to release...

As for the time-limited (?) price drop you mention how much of the retailer’s margin was affected compared to Sony/PD’s one? Did the PSN version of GT6 dropped price?

So far as I know, the PSN version is the same price still. The change to retailer margin versus Sony/PD margin? I doubt we'd ever get a solid answer, but I imagine it's a little for both. I'm positive Sony/PD don't receive the same cut for a copy of GT5 XL as they did for the bone-stock version in early 2011.

Talking of net "benefits" where goes that retailer’s margin on Sony’s store?

Oh, I imagine it mostly goes to Sony, though it'd make sense that the studio would get a slightly higher cut too; it'd be silly not to offer them one since the PSN version is cutting out the middle-man retail chains.

Not to mention DLC they barely scraped the surface with in 5 and is advertised with greater ambitions for the present iteration.

Advertised =/= real, actual DLC. Today's the first-month mark from release, and I haven't heard anything of that oft-quoted "monthly car/track DLC". We still don't have a date for B-Spec or Course Maker other than the PD-approved "soon".

If GT6 is beta-testing anything, I’d be tempted to say it’s a modified business model. And they possibly have the a$$ets to take the risk. As you pointed, only time will tell how perilous the move was.

If the outrageous prices they originally offered for credit pack DLC's is anything to go by, the road ahead is fraught with peril, indeed.

 

[trustjab]

Except that's the budget for just one game, released in 2010, and you're looking at 15 years worth of sales to cover only the most recent 7 years work. That's a massive, massive simplification that overlooks so many things I can't list them all.

The information Amar posted was a budget for the past 7 years. GT5 came out late 2010. So how is it 7 years dedicated to just one game? If what hes saying is true, that goes back to 2006; before GT5P was released. Imo, that budget was covering the cost of GT5 & part of 6. If thats correct, and we just take GT5's sales of ~10 million, to equal that budget, they would only have to take in $7 per sale. Its really really easy to think they made a good profit even if what youre saying is true and they spent $70 million on GT5, which I find hard to believe. But Im not employed by Sony or PD, so Im not 100%.

Edit: found an autoweek article that says GT5 took 5 years and about $60 million http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091103/SEMA/911039983

 

[AXEofGOD]

So I'm confused

I know you are. Here it is...If you can't fathom that they receive revenue from areas other than just units sold we are done talking. I said that I deflated some costs. Correct. But I never said that they are spending tons on advertisements. As for five pages ago...those numbers are just not correct. Retailers take thin margins on video games. As for my "Hollywood" accounting, last i checked you have NO numbers to go off of. Follow what others said 5 pages ago, fine, but in reality you don't know costs or extra revenue and are relying on posts by scaff and others to back your rants. "Ran away screaming" Nice try, try again. It's like I'm writing to a bag of dirt.

Now since you just won't let it go, I will try one more time.

So here we go... I will not be a condescending dick anymore, I was provoked, didn't like it, so I lashed back. 'nough said. Let's get to the facts...First, we need to add in GT5P because the games are too intertwined not to include it(especially with costs), and I think you can agree on that.

GT5P
3.5 million units sold at $40 - $32 going to PD after distribution and retail mark-up.
2 million units sold at $30 - $23 to PD.
Total = $146.5 Million
Costs= ($60 Million up to that point)
These links explain ^above^ in detail...
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2010/01/21/gran-turismo-5-will-be-a-profitable-powerhouse/
http://www.ps3blog.net/2010/01/19/food-for-thought-gran-turismo-5-is-already-profitable/

GT5
7 million copies sold at full $60 retail(I feel this units sold number may be a bit higher but whatever) - $45 for each copy to PD/Sony after retail costs(which is conservative)
3.7 Million more sold at $40 and $25 retail w/ PD taking $32 and $17 after distribution and retail costs – we will split the difference at 2m and 1.7m respectively(you can quibble over the split all you want I don't really care)
Total = 315+64+29 = $408 Million

Adding $408 to $146 we get to $554 Million after retail and distribution costs.($742.5 Million in Sales Revenue)

Now this is where we might differ on numbers...in game sponsors. GT has a numerous array of in game sponsors(at least 30, probably more). I would say sponsor related revenue could reach into the $60+ million dollar area but of course you will disagree...So here's some links showing you otherwise(First one talks about how much Nissan is spending annually, it's half way down, get ready because it's absurd).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-autos-gamescom-idUSBRE97L08M20130822
http://alittleclass.blogspot.com/2011/07/gran-turismo-5-creative-marketing-in.html
http://www.theesa.com/games-improving-what-matters/advertising.asp

http://www.csp-world.com/briefnews/...-setting-playstation-granturismo-6-video-game

So let's just say $30 Million...yeah yeah yeah, fine $26 Million for ease of addition(But if you read how much Nissan is paying for electronic ads annually this number could and should easily skyrocket).

This brings our total to a conservative $580 Million in revenue AFTER distribution & retail mark-ups.

Calculating costs of goods sold at what others are saying: $10 million each year for 3 years added to the original $60 million, we get ($90 Million) in costs.

Subtracting Costs of Goods Sold from Revenue after distribution we get $490,000,000. I don't think you can find $300 Million in ancillary costs. Adding that in game ads probably funded the whole project and maybe even more, a half-billion in profit is right on the mark.

Now go upstairs, kiss your mom goodnight, and go to sleep; it's past your bedtime. (I couldn't resist. Now I'm done)

Final link...It proves that my $2.5 Billion in revenue over 15 years was dead on.
http://venturebeat.com/2010/12/10/f...ys-gran-turismo-games-top-60m-sold-worldwide/

The whole point of this thread and all my posts was to show that PD isn't going anywhere anytime soon and we can be happy to know that GT7 and GT8 are in our PS4 futures. You have got to agree with me on that.

Gangbusters!


EDIT: Fixed a link issue.

EDIT: I have to add this...in game sponsors has to be up in the $50-$70 Million range, and a game of this stature can command retailers to take less margins; I could then justify a $100-$110 Million Cost for the game. Thus profits are well more than $500 Million)

 

[AXEofGOD]

Someone (with tremendous intellect) once told me that "Blindly belittling facts is for cowards." Interesting how well that applies to you since your numbers were actually challenged.

I'm guessing my numbers are no longer being challenged.

Class dismissed.

GANGBUSTERS!

 

[Tired Tyres]

Your numbers are total rubbish. You think PD get $32 out of a $40 game? Seriously?

Does this make it look anything at all like that? Look at the percentages.

http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2011/04/29/how-your-60-video-game-is-chopped-up/

Or try these numbers

Or try these numbers from someone who worked in the industry.

It's been a while since I've worked in the games industry, but the way it worked back then for a new game sale:
50% went to retail
10% went to duplication and distribution
15% went to the hardware manufacturer
25% went to the publisher
There were essentially two ways the developer would see some profit. Either the publisher would agree a set development cost and then the developer would get a percentage of the profit over and above that cost. Or the publisher would entirely fund the development, essentially paying all the developers costs until the game was finished, then the developer would be on what amounted to a bonus scheme where the publisher would make regular payments to the developer, depending on sales performance.

Obviously, with digital distribution, these figures will have changed, but I don't think they would be that different these days.

The Sony / PD relationship would fit into the second category. Sony will be entirely funding GT's development by paying all of PD's costs, then will pay them bonuses based on how well the game does.

So, would Sony ever close down PD? Of course they would. They are spending millions on the development of the GT series and have shown that they won't keep spending this money if there is nothing in it for them.

I can't see this happening any time soon, I would have thought GT7 would be key. But I imagine it will happen at some point.

 

[Tornado]

The only thing I wanted you to do from the start was actually provide some basis for your argument. You finally did, and while there are certain things I can quibble over (Why believe your wholesale price over the two separate sources posted earlier? Why do you have that much money going to PD directly? And your current number is spread out over two releases rather than one, which changes the argument somewhat), since I never disagreed with your point so much as the way you expressed it I see no real need to. What you put in that post is good enough for me.

 

[AXEofGOD]

Your numbers are total rubbish. You think PD get $32 out of a $40 game? Seriously?

You are way out of your league here. First off since PD is a Sony entity they will record all of the sales revenue in their income statement; as well as recording all associated costs on their balance sheet just as Rockstar would before adding in the console costs. Second, The margins described here are for the average game, i.e. Dance Dance Revolution, not a game with the pedigree of Gran Turismo. Go lay down before you hurt yourself.

... since I never disagreed with your point so much as the way you expressed it I see no real need to. What you put in that post is good enough for me.

"Subtract all that from the original number and you have 248 million. Subtract 84 million from that (the "5 years" development, plus another year after that interview, plus another year of post-release support). 164 million."

I would say that is a blatant disagreement. But at least we can agree that they are doing great. I may have over generalized earlier but the final numbers are damn close. I have also been trying to get you to help find actual cost data which is a tough task.

 

[Tornado]

I would say that is a blatant disagreement.

That is a blatant disagreement with your numbers. Not your point (ie. GT games make a lot of profit). Now that you've provided better numbers and actually backed them with real calculations (and with sources for most of your claims), I don't see as much to object to.

 

[jackargent]

axe of God, have you considered a career in politics?

 

[Tired Tyres]

You are way out of your league here. First off since PD is a Sony entity they will record all of the sales revenue in their income statement; as well as recording all associated costs on their balance sheet just as Rockstar would before adding in the console costs. Second, The margins described here are for the average game, i.e. Dance Dance Revolution, not a game with the pedigree of Gran Turismo. Go lay down before you hurt yourself.

Work in the accounts department of a service industry for a few years before you pretend you know what you are taking about.

100% markup is usual and 200% is not uncommon. Not games, fair enough, but if you can do that in a service industry I can only guess what retail will do. They are the money makers in this.

That Sony, and by extension, PD make a profit is not in doubt, but not as much as you think.

 

[Tornado]

I actually read through your links, and now I think your post breaking down the numbers is somewhat less sound than I was led to believe.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2010/01/21/gran-turismo-5-will-be-a-profitable-powerhouse/
http://www.ps3blog.net/2010/01/19/food-for-thought-gran-turismo-5-is-already-profitable/

Neither of those links (and the first one just regurgitates what the second one says, even linking back to the second one as the source, so it doesn't really add anything that the second did not) actually say how much money Sony received for GT5: P. They say that the revenue exceeded the development costs (to that point time) for GT5; then imply that the revenue being higher means they could use all that money to pay for GT5 proper. And since it's just a blog post (and one that doesn't really provide any sources), it doesn't bolster anything you were saying since you already provided more detailed numbers in your post.


I agree with the idea that GT5: P paid off a portion of GT5, but not the implication that GT5 was pure profit the minute it hit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-autos-gamescom-idUSBRE97L08M20130822

That's the number for their entire digital advertising budget. Everything from Google ads to those awful flash games and everything in between. The fact that it talks about GT Academy immediately after (and Nissan is the main partner in that and undoubtedly shoulder some of the costs) also suggests that that number and GT Academy are related.

http://alittleclass.blogspot.com/2011/07/gran-turismo-5-creative-marketing-in.html

This link only theorizes that the billboards and the like in the game are paid for to be there; and it also provides at least two example theoretical product placement when it is obvious that PD was the one paying to feature the brand (NASCAR and Top Gear) rather than PD being paid to feature them.

http://www.csp-world.com/briefnews/...-setting-playstation-granturismo-6-video-game

This one is the only one that directly relates an advertising campaign to the GT series, and it's similar to the Edge razors thing that was done for GT5; but it doesn't give any number amount.

Final link...It proves that my $2.5 Billion in revenue over 15 years was dead on.
http://venturebeat.com/2010/12/10/f...ys-gran-turismo-games-top-60m-sold-worldwide/

You didn't say 2.5, but the revenue numbers weren't the ones that were questionable anyway.

EDIT: I have to add this...in game sponsors has to be up in the $50-$70 Million range, and a game of this stature can command retailers to take less margins

You haven't provided any real citations for why these two things have to be the case. What proof is there that the Gran Turismo name commands smaller retailer margins beyond you insisting that it does? There's nothing proving the idea. Does that also mean that the games that sell similar or better than Gran Turismo are also granted those bonuses?

What reason is it (again, beyond your insistence that it is) that the in-game sponsorship windfall is obviously that much? There's no way to delineate from the outside looking in what was paid to be in the game to what was featured in the game at no charge instead (or what Sony still had to pay to include); and what you provided only had one directly suggest such a financial payment, with the other ones being general links or contradictory in the information they have

 

[shadynader]

There are WAAAAAY too many unknowns for anyone to have any sort of scope as to weather PD are struggling or have money to burn. Funny read though. 👍

 

[AXEofGOD]

It is sure easy to just negate what others say with no working knowledge of the subject.

Work in the accounts department of a service industry for a few years before you pretend you know what you are taking about.
100% markup is usual and 200% is not uncommon. Not games, fair enough, but if you can do that in a service industry I can only guess what retail will do. They are the money makers in this.
That Sony, and by extension, PD make a profit is not in doubt, but not as much as you think.

Yeah and 1000% is common in the jewelry industry. Instead of being a prat how about you put together your own numbers and then get back to me. Do you even understand why Amazon or walmart are cheaper than everyone else?

15% if you are third party. PD are wholly owned by Sony Corp. who get 50%, probably plus PD's 15% so it's Sony that see 65% of the money from game sales. PD provide the product, Sony sees the profit.

Found 'em and you are completely way off base...PD gets the revenue, all of it. PD's retained earnings at the end of the year will not get closed out into their cash account, that is what will go to Sony, not the revenue from sales. If it is as high as a 25% mark-up, then game revenue for Sony/PD is $48 each unit shipped. How about you start with that and calculate your own numbers...Just quit shooting down the only hard numbers on here without even providing any quality sources for why, any numbers of your own, or any real notion that you know what your talking about. That type of attitude is what is rubbish.

I actually read through your links

Well that's nice. But you failed to grasp that GT5P made $150 million if you think that costs were above and beyond that well then please elaborate.

You haven't provided any real citations for why these two things have to be the case. What proof is there that the Gran Turismo name commands smaller retailer margins beyond you insisting that it does? There's nothing proving the idea. Does that also mean that the games that sell similar or better than Gran Turismo are also granted those bonuses?

Because I say so. Not good enough? Tough. And Yes games of this stature can dictate their wholesale price. When you see retailers asking for "special in game bonuses" i.e. game stop giving you 25 cars if you pre-order, then you know they are doing everything they can to gain market share of said game. Getting you in the door is priority one for any retailer. I have yet to see you bring anything of value to the table except pointing out that I must have hard sources(which ^ShadyNader^ points out are extremely difficult to get) in order to make any of my thoughts remotely valid.

I have been attacked and attacked and attacked, all the while I am the only one coming up with a final number, all the while others are just instead blindly going off other posts as if it were facts given to Moses by God.

So if you still want to be negative, we are done here...Find some info and get your own numbers together. Only then will we move forward.

 

[Tornado]

Well that's nice. But you failed to grasp that GT5P made $150 million if you think that costs were above and beyond that well then please elaborate.

Nice attempt at a subject change. I take that to mean that you either are unwilling or (more likely) unable to actually discuss any of the other things I brought up.



For future reference for that thing, though: If you're claiming that a game made 150 million dollars in profit:

GT5P
3.5 million units sold at $40 - $32 going to PD after distribution and retail mark-up.
2 million units sold at $30 - $23 to PD.
Total = $146.5 Million
Costs= ($60 Million up to that point)

Providing two links to back up the statement which says the game made 100 million dollars in revenue:

These links explain ^above^ in detail...
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2010/01/21/gran-turismo-5-will-be-a-profitable-powerhouse/
http://www.ps3blog.net/2010/01/19/food-for-thought-gran-turismo-5-is-already-profitable/

Probably isn't the best idea. Neither is flipping out when someone questions the links as a result of that.

Because I say so. Not good enough? Tough.

And with that any attempts to take you seriously are gone (I was seriously trying after your last couple posts). So much for... how did you put it? Finding "some numbers to come to an agreement on".

I have yet to see you bring anything of value to the table except pointing out that I must have hard sources(which ^ShadyNader^ points out are extremely difficult to get) in order to make any of my thoughts remotely valid

I see the "nice" AxeofGod didn't last too long if asking two questions was all it took to set you off again. Interesting that you want to talk about bringing value to the table, since it took you 12 posts to actually provide data that had some sort of meaning.

So if you still want to be negative, we are done here

Thank heavens for that. I hope you enjoy the rest of your membership here. Until our paths cross again.

 

[Tenacious D]

I was about to say, take it to a room. You both seem to want to win the very last net cookie.

And Tor, for a guy who bristles at being called the board nanny...

 

[AXEofGOD]

I was about to say, take it to a room. You both seem to want to win the very last net cookie.

I tried. I got one open as of 4 hours ago. I asked for a collaboration on numbers, nothing. Just likes being an antagonist i guess.

 

[MigsRZXAdvent21]

No way Polyphony Digital would go busted! As long as Kazunori Yamauchi is racing, both physically and mentally, Gran Turismo is still alive!!

 

[AXEofGOD]

Tornado: You seriously need to check out of this thread. Why don't you go back to bashing people's ideas in the light bulb thread.

Oh yeah and MIgsrzxadvent21^ gets it....

GANGBUSTERS!

 

[Tornado]

I tried. I got one open as of 4 hours ago. I asked for a collaboration on numbers, nothing. Just likes being an antagonist i guess.

You mean the PM you sent 20 minutes after this post? The PM that you waited just over an hour for a response to before deciding to flip out again because I dared question your sources, before I actually had a chance to respond to it? That PM?




Yeah. Forgive me if I no longer think it was a genuine attempt to discuss things behind the scenes.

 

[AXEofGOD]

Yeah. Forgive me if I no longer think it was a genuine attempt to discuss things behind the scenes.

You are forgiven. Peace be unto you.

 

[MigsRZXAdvent21]

Tornado: You seriously need to check out of this thread. Why don't you go back to bashing people's ideas in the light bulb thread.

Oh yeah and MIgsrzxadvent21^ gets it....

GANGBUSTERS!

Why thank you, AXEofGOD!
I'll forgive Tornado, too, because forgiveness means you have figuratively walked the dark tunnel and saw the light at the end!

 

[trustjab]

Blah blah blah. PD is not going bust. This thread is just a big trap-door! Climb out now and dont look back guys.

 

[MigsRZXAdvent21]

Blah blah blah. PD is not going bust. This thread is just a big trap-door! Climb out now and dont look back guys.

So you agree with what I said here? Just saying my two cents on this!

And now that you've said that this thread is just a big trap-door...

OK! I'm getting outta here!

And to any Admin here, please close this pointless thread! I don't want to be associated with instigating flame wars and conspiracy for trolling.