I hope PD haven't gone bust

[Crispy]

Maybe they didn't want to make a 🤬 like MS did with T10? No one can say FM5 wasn't rushed , while DC was wisely delayed. To me looks like NEXT gen was released at least 6 months too early at least judging by software support .

While I can agree that Forza 5 was rushed a bit in order to make it into launch, this game was worse. You can't possibly try and tell me that GT6 wasn't rushed.

 

[Scaff]

Can we not turn this into a FM vs GT thread, we have enough of those already - thanks.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

And, @xxxdinger, (isn't that a racist term?), you should look at Scaff's original figures again. His approximations are based on known proportions of sales shares, from that he extrapolates the known (ballpark) sales figure. It's very clear.

Sales numbers are not in dispute, its costs & breakdowns that are questionable. You cant discount Sony's cut as publisher when some of the production cost (licensing etc) would be Sony's. Also, PD staff are paid by Sony, not PD.

The nickname Dinger came from my army days. A bunch of Americans gave it to me when I beat them in a sniping competition. If its a racist term it would be the first I have heard of it (and its certainly not meant as offensive in anyway)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sales numbers are not in dispute, its costs & breakdowns that are questionable. You cant discount Sony's cut as publisher when some of the production cost (licensing etc) would be Sony's. Also, PD staff are paid by Sony, not PD.

PD don't pay their own staff, Sony do? I'd be interested to see the source for that.

You also say that some of the licensing cost "would" be Sony's, that's certainly true but my own opinion is that the "some" would cover very few licences. Most licences are going to be PD-only and will be specifically brand/model related.

I still think you seem to be far from understanding how large companies spread their cash, assets and liabilities around in their subsidiaries. We don't know the exact PD/Sony arrangements for sure but Scaff's figures represent (again imo) one of the best approximations that you'll find.

And sorry about the tag question... here "dinge" is a very negative term as is, obviously, "dinger".

 

[Scaff]

Sales numbers are not in dispute, its costs & breakdowns that are questionable.

Costs are not questionable (unless Kaz is not a valid source):
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...urismo_5s_Development_Cost_Hit_60_Million.php

And that's circa 2009, and as such doesn't cover the cost of updates and DLC.

In regard to breakdown, that's exactly why I have been clear from day one on this that the figures I'm using are indicative and approximations.

So at the risk of saying it just for the cheap seat. If I had claimed these to be 100% accurate you would have a point, but I didn't, so you don't.

Its also odd that you are still focusing just on figures that are clearly presented as approximations (and have had sources shown and calculations transparently detailed), yet continue to give a pass to the absurd. Given that I guess you must be OK with a claim that PD made enough money on the PS3 from GT5 (and derivatives) to develop for 20+ years without releasing anything.

You cant discount Sony's cut as publisher when some of the production cost (licensing etc) would be Sony's. Also, PD staff are paid by Sony, not PD.

Citation required.

You make a big deal about assumptions, yet you give yourself a pass on them.

Edited to add: I've just checked and PD are a subsidiary of Sony, which would make them (under normal subsidiary terms) a separate business entity from the parent. As such it would be highly unusual for the staff to be paid from the parent company. As such, while Sony will be the majority holder in PD, the company itself would act fairly independently, and certainly would be independently accountable from a financial perspective.

Edited again to add:
From Sony's own site:

Polyphony Digital Inc. is a subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Polyphony Digital began as a development team within SCE, but became an independent company in 1998, the year after the release of its first title, Gran Turismo.

Source - http://www.worldwidestudios.net/polyphony

As such the model and breakdown I've presented will be the closest to reality. Sony may well inject funds into the business, but PD will then have to balance the books, will take a profit share (as per my breakdown model) to be able to run the business, etc.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Sales numbers are not in dispute, its costs & breakdowns that are questionable. You cant discount Sony's cut as publisher when some of the production cost (licensing etc) would be Sony's. Also, PD staff are paid by Sony, not PD.

The nickname Dinger came from my army days. A bunch of Americans gave it to me when I beat them in a sniping competition. If its a racist term it would be the first I have heard of it (and its certainly not meant as offensive in anyway)

According to this.

http://digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

The official budget for GT5 was $60 million, why they have added $20 million to that only they know. Possible two years staff salary.

This indicates how the money is divided.

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

Or this does.

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

Then you need the sales numbers before the budget rerelease at $60 a pop and the budget release numbers and you can work out how much Sony made from GT5.

Which in all probability will be wrong because it doesn't cover ongoing server costs.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

@TenEightyOne

I doubt very much if a small team like PD has its own accounts department, more like they get a budget from Sony for staffing levels. Simply put it is a wholly owned subsidiary and any estimated costs for production, would most likely include publisher costs as well. So only taking 15% as a figure for GT5 and not Sony's other percentage share is going to be wrong (especially as we dont know if development costs covered GT5P and GTPSP).

Also, just looked up "dinge" and all I will say is 'yikes'

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne

I doubt very much if a small team like PD has its own accounts department, more like they get a budget from Sony for staffing levels. Simply put it is a wholly owned subsidiary and any estimated costs for production, would most likely include publisher costs as well. So only taking 15% as a figure for GT5 and not Sony's other percentage share is going to be wrong (especially as we dont know if development costs covered GT5P and GTPSP).

Also, just looked up "dinge" and all I will say is 'yikes'

I still disagree, software and Intellectual Property licensing is big business - look at today's IT news (take your pic) and you'll see three or four of the biggies fighting a patent/IP case out right now. Fighting hundreds of them, in fact.

KY hasn't got to his 8th (? 9th? ) GT release without having a good hold on the business. Either you've worked in large entertainment/IT business or you haven't. With all due respect your viewpoint seems mildly naive and I suspect therefore that you haven't.

PD owns something that they sell to GT, that's why they get to operate in the seemingly autonamous way they do. And what if Sony DID cut them loose? I don't think PD would struggle to find a backer for their next release.

 

[Scaff]

@TenEightyOne

I doubt very much if a small team like PD has its own accounts department, more like they get a budget from Sony for staffing levels. Simply put it is a wholly owned subsidiary and any estimated costs for production, would most likely include publisher costs as well. So only taking 15% as a figure for GT5 and not Sony's other percentage share is going to be wrong (especially as we dont know if development costs covered GT5P and GTPSP).

110 staff across three sites is enough to have an accounts team, and PD have an auditor on the board, which would mean that financial information exists to audit. All of which quite clearly points to independent financial control (not to mention being an independent subsidiary of Sony).

Source: http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/

It also means that profit for PD and Sony would be two different things, and as such the 15% return to PD (using a rough industry average) would be acceptable for most. It also means that the claim they could last for decades developing without release is as absurd as I have maintained (and you still ignore).

 

[TenEightyOne]

I remember some years ago visiting the offices where F1:2010 was being developed. It looked like any IT office, stuck in portacabins, a plethora of PCs of varying quality spread along desks in a perfectly generic office. There was the mixture of accountants, leads and droids that you'd expect anywhere. Very unglamorous and very real.

PD are likely no different, it's easy to see the polished brand and why not? It's what they sell. But selling it for this long without going bust, without being ditched by Sony and without being amalgamated? Not only do they know their onions but they've kept their eggs intact. I think I need to go eat....

 

[Scaff]

I remember some years ago visiting the offices where F1:2010 was being developed. It looked like any IT office, stuck in portacabins, a plethora of PCs of varying quality spread along desks in a perfectly generic office. There was the mixture of accountants, leads and droids that you'd expect anywhere. Very unglamorous and very real.

PD are likely no different, it's easy to see the polished brand and why not? It's what they sell. But selling it for this long without going bust, without being ditched by Sony and without being amalgamated? Not only do they know their onions but they've kept their eggs intact. I think I need to go eat....

No different from the company I work for (we supply IT solutions and consultancy to the Motor Industry), and are a wholly owned subsidiary of the US parent company. While bigger than PD (now) we operate in exactly the way one would expect from a subsidiary.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

I give up. Obviously Scaff you are bang on as all the costs are PD's and all the profits are Sony's.

I think i'll join the OP in saying PD maybe bust, just because Scaffs figures cant possibly be wrong!

 

[Scaff]

I give up. Obviously Scaff you are bang on as all the costs are PD's and all the profits are Sony's.

I think i'll join the OP in saying PD maybe bust, just because Scaffs figures cant possibly be wrong!

Which is not even remotely close to what I have said or ever said. I've never said that all the costs are PD's (development costs would be PD's and marketing would be Sony's - consistently stated) or that al the profits are Sony's (I even detailed what the industry average spilt between dev (PD) and publisher (Sony) are).

Simply because I can back up the approximations I have made with sources and roughly correct values, and the company structure of PD does not mean that toys need to come out of prams. Nor does it mean that you can then attempt to utterly misrepresent what I have said consistently across two threads.

Surely it would be far more constructive to simply acknowledge that the approximations I have made are based in reality and do fit broadly with how things are structured?

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

Which is not even remotely close to what I have said or ever said. I've never said that all the costs are PD's (development costs would be PD's and marketing would be Sony's - consistently stated) or that al the profits are Sony's (I even detailed what the industry average spilt between dev (PD) and publisher (Sony) are).

Simply because I can back up the approximations I have made with sources and roughly correct values, and the company structure of PD does not mean that toys need to come out of prams. Nor does it mean that you can then attempt to utterly misrepresent what I have said consistently across two threads.

Surely it would be far more constructive to simply acknowledge that the approximations I have made are based in reality and do fit broadly with how things are structured?

Yet whenever someone questions your mathematics or other factors, you fail to give any explanation other than "its just an approximation'

 

[Tired Tyres]

Yet whenever someone questions your mathematics or other factors, you fail to give any explanation other than "its just an approximation'

Perhaps that's because he's never claimed the numbers are anything other that an approximation. What possible other explanation could there be?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yet whenever someone questions your mathematics or other factors, you fail to give any explanation other than "its just an approximation'

At the risk of prolonging the argument; the final figure is an approximation BUT the base sits on known, published facts. As you extrapolate from those you gather a margin of error but you can still clearly see the direction in which the figures project.

On that basis Scaff's approximation is based on accurate calculations. Approximation doesn't mean guess... well, maybe "educated guess"... it just means that the final figure isn't guaranteed.

If you look at the argument that Scaff is answering with his approximation you'll see that his figures are more than adequate. The impression that I've gained personally is that you're arguing about the figures in a context to which they were never presented.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

OK. Lets do this the easy way.

Regarding the 60mil development figure, please answer these questions anyone (facts only, no guessing).

1. Is that figure based soley on GT5's production cost or does it include costs for GT5P & GTPSP.

2. If its soley GT5's costs, does it include any costs Sony incurred during its development, if so, whats the split.

Knock yourselves out guys

 

[amar212]

Anyone here reads anything on previous pages or just simply jumps on previous poster quoting?

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

Anyone here reads anything on previous pages or just simply jumps on previous poster quoting?

I read it Amar. Not sure many others did though

 

[TenEightyOne]

Anyone here reads anything on previous pages or just simply jumps on previous poster quoting?

Unfortunately collaborative debate is rarely linear, @amar.

 

[s-oso]

All game sales numbers are getting lower because of increase in digital sales that don't count towards regular.

 

[priesty_lfc]

Anyone here reads anything on previous pages or just simply jumps on previous poster quoting?

As your to polite to mention this I will.

Obviously @Scaff is all over this thread quoting left right and centre without reading your response to him or he choosing to ignore it which is ironic.

Personally I think both of your posts are generally very informative and you both are massive posters within the GTP forum so I assume he must have just missed your post.

 

[deviln3]

All game sales numbers are getting lower because of increase in digital sales that don't count towards regular.

Which is silly, because I'd assume the digital sales are more profitable than physical disc sales.. especially since they are sold at equal prices.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

Which is silly, because I'd assume the digital sales are more profitable than physical disc sales.. especially since they are sold at equal prices.

I wish they were equal. I paid 50quid for the digital version when mosts shops were 40quid.

Serves me right for being lazy just to avoid putting a disk in

 

[s-oso]

Offcouse they are more profitable. They even take the middleman, the store, out of equation. All the profit goes directly to Sony. And they dont release digital sales numbers...

 

[Scaff]

As your to polite to mention this I will.

Obviously @Scaff is all over this thread quoting left right and centre without reading your response to him or he choosing to ignore it which is ironic.

Personally I think both of your posts are generally very informative and you both are massive posters within the GTP forum so I assume he must have just missed your post.

I've read it and don't disagree 100% with it, it doesn't however significant change the point I have been making. That if PD were a standalone studio they would have needed approx 9 million units sold to have roughly broken even in terms of development costs. I've always acknowledged that these are rough figures and were used to illustrate that revenue does not equal profit (as some have claimed).

Nor does it change the absurdity of the point I made it against, which was that PD have made enough money to be able to develop at current pace for 20+ years without releasing a single thing to generate any income.

I still find it utterly bonkers that a statement as utterly inane as that is given a free pass, but a reasonable approximation (with sourced information) is the one treated as being a problem!

That I guess says a lot about those who chose to give a free pass to the idea that PD could develop for 20+ years with the funds generated from GT5 and its associated titles.

I do wonder why I'm the only one to find such a claim a little odd?

 

[Tornado]

1. Is that figure based soley on GT5's production cost or does it include costs for GT5P & GTPSP.

Why would the development costs for a completely different game be included in the budget for GT5? And I while did read amar's post, that doesn't mean that I necessarily agree that his interpretation of Kaz's statement on that matter is the one, because I'm not so sure Kaz was referring to PD's budget over everything that they had done to that point rather just the time spent on GT5. Even if that was what Kaz was referring to, the date of the interview and the ultimate final release date adds another, what, $12 million to that number? I certainly doubt that they spent anywhere near that much money in terms of man hours developing GTPSP.

Obviously @Scaff is all over this thread quoting left right and centre without reading your response to him or he choosing to ignore it which is ironic.

Er...

@amar212

I think you may have taken my point about FM and GT a little too literally. My point was (and it mainly applies to T10) that MS will fund a first party driving sim on the Xbox platform pretty much regardless so it has a counterpoint to Sony. It doesn't matter than they don't directly compete, its more from a marketing point of view that MS feel its important to have an answer to GT (and personally I doubt that T10 has ever returned a major profit to MS).

 

[ZoidFile]

I did it with rough estimates (that worked in PD's favour) last year and GT5 only broke even once its had achieved around 9 million units, so profit to cover them for a decades seems way too optimistic.

I read some time ago that GT5s production cost were covered by selling GT5 prologue alone. They basically sold the game twice, just in different states of production.

Edit: sorry missed a half thread.

 

[Scaff]

I read some time ago that GT5s production cost were covered by selling GT5 prologue alone. They basically sold the game twice, just in different states of production.

Edit: sorry missed a half thread.

Already raised and discussed:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/i-hope-pd-havent-gone-bust.296105/page-3#post-9164353

Yet whenever someone questions your mathematics or other factors, you fail to give any explanation other than "its just an approximation'

What?

I've fully explained (across two threads) the logic behind my reasoning.

The approximation is in regard to the figures (i.e. a margin for error exists to some degree within them as its based upon the information we have to work with), the approach and reason has been explained. That you are choosing to ignore it is not my issue.

A question for you (which I seriously doubt you will answer), what margin for error or approximation exists in the claim that PD could last for 20+ years developing away without releasing a title?

I ask because you seem quite happy to give that one a free pass (despite me asking for your take on it three times now)!

 

[NixxxoN]

PD going bust?? Yeah right, and I suppose they went bust because of the MASSIVE spending they must have done at Ronda (Spain) for the GT6 launch event/party. Otherwise, something is not correct