I hope PD haven't gone bust

[dtimefeel]

In terms of revenue for Sony - I think it may have been missed that GT sells Playstation hardware.
Sure, GT6 won't sell as many PS3s as GT5 did, but have a look at people who mention they're getting back into GT and are investing in a PS3.

If any of those people were planning on getting a PS4 in the near future as well, then GT6 has effectively brought Sony 3x the revenue.
There is no way GT5 or 6 count as break-even-only.

There's also the fact that development effort for 6 was pretty miniscule.
Really, what did they add? A handful of premiums, quicker menus, new physics, star simulation, and integration with the PS Store for microtransactions.
If GT5 cost 80mil to make, GT6 couldn't possibly have cost more than 40mil. If they've sold even 1/2 of GT5, they're gold.

Edit: Keep changing my numbers, sorry.

 

[phillgt2002]

Nope, Polyphony will never do so. You'll see a GT on the PS4 with jaw dropping visuals and even better physics. Sony wouldn't let it be that kind of gamble. There is simply money to be made because many simulation gamers know the potential of Polyphony with a new system.

 

[Zuku]

Nope, Polyphony will never do so. You'll see a GT on the PS4 with jaw dropping visuals and even better physics. Sony wouldn't let it be that kind of gamble. There is simply money to be made because many simulation gamers know the potential of Polyphony with a new system.

Know something think I've tired of jaw dropping visuals and better physics line. When Honestly I want PD to include every Track from GT's past, and for pete's sake give other countries some love and car companies more love period when it comes to cars.

I like Honda, Mazda, Nissan, and even Mitsubishi, but at the same time what about Chrysler and Cadillac it's extremely disheartening to see only two cars in Cadillac section really it is.

Heck what of the other places like Africa and South America too in terms of car and tracks(feel free to correct me btw if there are some from these two places).

Hell give me back Rally the way it use to be and better even improve on Nascar(not going to lie kind of enjoyed it in GT5 even if half-assed I could see some potential).

/rant

 

[deviln3]

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

Naa not yet.. they will go bust when they develop a car instead of a shoe for Nike.

Nike: "We've heard you guys have a good physics engine.. please develop a shoe for us"
Kaz: "Yes yes, we will make you a Nike branded car!"

Then they will spend too many man hours developing a car for nike, which won't get released cause nike wanted a shoe and so the company will go bust from the impending lawsuit.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

@ Scaff

I'll happily answer your question. No, I do not believe Amar's assumption that PD have basically covered 20years in production just on the profits of GT1, GT2 & GT3.However, I do think that any profits made from the GT series (including spin of titles like the concepts game) upto and including GT5 is enough to cover development costs of GT6 & most likely GT7 (especially when you consider PD's current approach for future proofing).

EDIT. Opps, said GT5P instead of just GT5 (now changed)

 

[DaveS1138]

I seriously doubt that is the case.

GT5P sold 5.5 million units (well just under that), at $23 a unit (rough and generous average) would be $137 million. If Sony return half of that as profit I would be surprised, which would be circa $65 million. Which would pay for GT5 development, if it were not for the fact we now need to cost in however much GT5P cost to develop and how much was wasted in the deadend that was GT:HD (as in the original micro transaction idea and the early demo).

So while it will have helped, it certainly would not have paid for it outright at all, which brings us back to why GT6 is so damn important as a PS3 title.

The article you quoted stating $60 million spent on development states that that is for the last 5 years which sounds to me that they are saying the $60 million covers the development cost of both GT5: P and GT5. Basically they are considering GT5: P as part of the development of GT5.

In that case I can easily see the profits of GT5: P going a long way to covering the entire cost and a large part of GT5 sales being gravy on top for Sony and PD.

 

[Scaff]

The article you quoted stating $60 million spent on development states that that is for the last 5 years which sounds to me that they are saying the $60 million covers the development cost of both GT5: P and GT5. Basically they are considering GT5: P as part of the development of GT5.

In that case I can easily see the profits of GT5: P going a long way to covering the entire cost and a large part of GT5 sales being gravy on top for Sony and PD.

No it doesn't.

In neither the Gamesutra or original Autoweek interview with Kaz at SEMA does it say that at all. In fact in the Autoweek interview the question asked was specifically how much did GT5 cost to develop, no mention of time periods in the question at all.

 

[dr_slump]

No it doesn't.

In neither the Gamesutra or original Autoweek interview with Kaz at SEMA does it say that at all. In fact in the Autoweek interview the question asked was specifically how much did GT5 cost to develop, no mention of time periods in the question at all.

But what is a prologue?

Doesn't what they call prologue simply use an early development stage of the whole, a pretaste if you want so, and packs this into a playable form of a stable alpha-like game that represents the current state of the development process for the real objective?

You don't simply start and finish something/ a process with a prologue. It basically just shows a snapshot in time.

 

[Scaff]

@ Scaff

I'll happily answer your question. No, I do not believe Amar's assumption that PD have basically covered 20years in production just on the profits of GT1, GT2 & GT3.However, I do think that any profits made from the GT series (including spin of titles like the concepts game) upto and including GT5 is enough to cover development costs of GT6 & most likely GT7 (especially when you consider PD's current approach for future proofing).

EDIT. Opps, said GT5P instead of just GT5 (now changed)

First Amar never said that at all, so your attributing it to the wrong person.

Second its quite clear that you are therefore giving this claim a free pass. Not a single source, citation or attempt to validate such a claim has ever been presented, yet you accept it blindly!

However when someone does provide source after source, clearly and openly show the logic they have used, and been open and honest about the potential issues with the approach they have used you basically dismiss it as not detailed enough.

Rather a massive double standard.

But what is a prologue?

Doesn't what they call prologue simply use an early development stage of the whole, a pretaste if you want so, and packs this into a playable form of a stable alpha-like game that represents the current state of the development process for the real objective?

You don't simply start and finish something/ a process with a prologue. It basically just shows a snapshot in time.

In 2009 GT5P had been out for a year, as such from a project development point of view all the costs associated with development would have been finished and revenue being worked into a P&L. It would make no sense at all from a financial and project perspective to carry on accruing the development costs into a separate project (GT5). You would never be able to produce a valid P&L for GT5P if you took that approach (which would be a major issue for shareholders and the board).

Any development transferable from GT5P to GT5 would simply be moved over to reduce the development start point for GT5, with costs starting again, or again you would never end up with a P&L for GT5 (which would be a major issue for shareholders and the board).

I'm a qualified Project Manager and in over a decade and a half of managing projects I've never seen anyone (who knows what they are doing) attempt to do this, it would make no sense at all and would make life from a management, financial and development point of view far more difficult that it needs to be. You would also never have any idea how much you had made on either product.

In regard to your first point, what is a prologue, well in this case its a title, a bit of marketing jargon to sell a product. I could just as easily argue that for the US GT3 was the prologue for GT4, and for the world that GT was the prologue for GT2.


In the Autoworld interview Kaz was asked a very clear question, how much did GT5 cost to develop, he didn't caveat his answer or correct the question at all.

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

@Scaff

What more do you want me to say. I have said cleary that no I dont believe that claim (and yes Amar did make a similar claim, proving you didn't bother to read his post).As for your new 'assumption' of development costs starting fresh after GT5P (meaning 60mil costs in 3 years) is even wilder than your early simplistic mathematics. I dont know where you get this assumptions but I have a feeling if I look around the lunar missions in GT6, it will be a good place to start.

One thing that I can draw from your posts is that you obviously are pushing an agenda. There is no doubt you are reaching with nothing but assumptions, heresay and very little in the way of facts. Whenever someone gives you a simple explanation as to why your figures could be way wrong, you brush them off with nothing more than an arrogant wave of the hand, thinking you are above everybody else and only your opinion/agenda matters

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff

What more do you want me to say. I have said cleary that no I dont believe that claim (and yes Amar did make a similar claim, proving you didn't bother to read his post).

Then you will have no problem at all quoting him saying that PD could run for decades without a release based on the profits they have made.

As I've re-read his posts in this thread a number of times and done a search against the key words used and drawn a blank.

He did say:

"So, yes, I will go that far and say how I assume how the actual accumulated ROI of GT1-GT2-GT3 games generated from 1997-2001 is still "used" to fund GT6 and GT7 development in 2014, while actual profits made from GT4 onwards have not yet even being "touched" at all."

However that is still quite different to saying they could go for decades without releasing a new title!

As for your new 'assumption' of development costs starting fresh after GT5P (meaning 60mil costs in 3 years) is even wilder than your early simplistic mathematics. I dont know where you get this assumptions but I have a feeling if I look around the lunar missions in GT6, it will be a good place to start.

What did GT5 cost to make?

[Yamauchi and translator do some figuring, converting yen to dollars] $60 million. There are other games that cost more. Considering the size and scale of the game, I think it's probably a fairly small amount.

Source - http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091103/SEMA/911039983

Not an assumption but a direct quote from Kaz.

One thing that I can draw from your posts is that you obviously are pushing an agenda.

Do enlighten me.

There is no doubt you are reaching with nothing but assumptions, heresay and very little in the way of facts. Whenever someone gives you a simple explanation as to why your figures could be way wrong, you brush them off with nothing more than an arrogant wave of the hand, thinking you are above everybody else and only your opinion/agenda matters

Argue the point, don't attack the person.

Not only is it a good indicator that you are unable to back your point up with anything close to substantial but its also against the AUP, continue with the personal attacks and digs and you will be gone.

I've been nothing but polite to you, I've supplied sources and explained every step of my logic (and even pointed out the weak areas for you). As such this kind of reply is both unwarranted and unacceptable.

 

[jackargent]

[Yamauchi and translator do some figuring, converting yen to dollars] $60 million. There are other games that cost more. Considering the size and scale of the game, I think it's probably a fairly small amount.

It would make no sense at all from a financial and project perspective to carry on accruing the development costs into a separate project (GT5). You would never be able to produce a valid P&L for GT5P if you took that approach

Of course from an accounting point of view you are correct - but Kaz wasn't supplying figures for a balance sheet - he was giving an off the cuff response to a journalist. It seems perfectly plausible that Kaz would see PT5P as part of the same project and the $60million covers both. It is equally plausible that it only covered GT5.

It's also perfectly plausible, bearing in mind the circumstances, that the figure is completely inaccurate, either because he got it wrong (a bit like the area of land in the course maker) or he may not have wished to divulge the correct figure for commercial reasons.

Who knows?

All I know is there are lots of people on this thread constructing fantastic theories on the basis of what can only be speculation. It has been most entertaining to read. But I don't feel any the wiser at the end of it.

 

[Scaff]

Of course from an accounting point of view you are correct - but Kaz wasn't supplying figures for a balance sheet - he was giving an off the cuff response to a journalist. It seems perfectly plausible that Kaz would see PT5P as part of the same project and the $60million covers both. It is equally plausible that it only covered GT5.

It's also perfectly plausible, bearing in mind the circumstances, that the figure is completely inaccurate, either because he got it wrong (a bit like the area of land in the course maker) or he may not have wished to divulge the correct figure for commercial reasons.

Who knows?

All I know is there are lots of people on this thread constructing fantastic theories on the basis of what can only be speculation. It has been most entertaining to read. But I don't feel any the wiser at the end of it.

Which is exactly why I have always presented my information on the topic as approximations. I've taken what Kaz said here at face value. It could be that he means to include GT5P in it (however that had been out for a year and development on it effectively closed) which would reduce the balance, however the interview was also from 2009, and as such would then not cover the final development of GT5 (which released in 2010) and the post release development costs.

Given that I think the approach I took was fairly balanced given the information at hand.

 

[Devil240Z]

There will never be another GT game. GT6 is the last one. I'm 100% sure of it.

 

[DaveS1138]

No it doesn't.

In neither the Gamesutra or original Autoweek interview with Kaz at SEMA does it say that at all. In fact in the Autoweek interview the question asked was specifically how much did GT5 cost to develop, no mention of time periods in the question at all.

Yes it does.

From your Gamasutra link

Polyphony Digital's long-awaited PlayStation 3 racing sim Gran Turismo 5 has cost publisher Sony a total of $60 million over its five-year development cycle, according to an estimate by series producer Kazunori Yamauchi.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...urismo_5s_Development_Cost_Hit_60_Million.php

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes it does.

From your Gamasutra link



http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...urismo_5s_Development_Cost_Hit_60_Million.php

Gamasutra include a link to the interview and then misquote it. Nowhere does he say over the five-year development cycle - at least not that I can see?

 

[jackargent]

There will never be another GT game. GT6 is the last one. I'm 100% sure of it.

Oh well, that''ll be that then!

 

[Devil240Z]

Oh well, that''ll be that then!

yup its over. we can all go home.

 

[DaveS1138]

Gamasutra include a link to the interview and then misquote it. Nowhere does he say over the five-year development cycle - at least not that I can see?

Fair enough. The original interview seems vauge on the issue. They ask him previous questions about GT5 where he is clearly talking about GT5 as a 5 year project and it would make sense for him to include GT5: P as part of the development of GT5 but it doesn't specifically say that in the interview.

 

[Scaff]

Fair enough. The original interview seems vauge on the issue. They ask him previous questions about GT5 where he is clearly talking about GT5 as a 5 year project and it would make sense for him to include GT5: P as part of the development of GT5 but it doesn't specifically say that in the interview.

How is the original interview vague on it?

The question is clearly asked and answered, maybe that he doesn't mention GT5P in the interview is because he's not talking about GT5P?

 

[imported_xxDingerxx]

How is the original interview vague on it?

The question is clearly asked and answered, maybe that he doesn't mention GT5P in the interview is because he's not talking about GT5P?

This is the thing though. Everything you base things on are just your assumptions based on very vague info.

You cant answer that gt5p or gtpsp were not included in that budget. You cant answer if that cost was purely PD's or included Sony's costs .

Hell even your original sums are assumptions. "lets just take $40 as an estimate". Strange that GT5 sold 6.3million in 6 weeks which by itself exceeds your total income for 9million (unless you are claiming it went budget in that time).

Your figures really are nothing but pure fantasy

 

[Scaff]

This is the thing though. Everything you base things on are just your assumptions based on very vague info.

You cant answer that gt5p or gtpsp were not included in that budget. You cant answer if that cost was purely PD's or included Sony's costs .

Hell even your original sums are assumptions. "lets just take $40 as an estimate". Strange that GT5 sold 6.3million in 6 weeks which by itself exceeds your total income for 9million (unless you are claiming it went budget in that time).

Your figures really are nothing but pure fantasy

No my figures are approximations based upon the information that we have, and I have been quite clear about that from the very beginning.

I can and have given my view on the budget inmcluding/not including GT5P/GTPSP, I've quoted Kaz's exact words on it and explained the issues with the figures. I do notice that on the subject of dev costs for the rest of 2009/2010 and post go-live you fail to mention at all, they would push the dev cost back up just as GT5P/GTPSP would pus it down across each title.

If I had made them up without any source or reference they would be 'pure fantasy'.

Now I believe you were going to tell me about my agenda........ (or will it be straight back to the personal digs and claims members made statements they didn't?), or maybe how about you put your figures together for this? Don't worry even if they are only approximations I will only subject them to the same level of OTT nit-picking your have made clear you are OK with. I await them with interest.

 

[dr_slump]

In the Autoworld interview Kaz was asked a very clear question, how much did GT5 cost to develop, he didn't caveat his answer or correct the question at all.

But he also said it took 5 years to develop. How does that work then?

 

[Scaff]

But he also said it took 5 years to develop. How does that work then?

It may well have taken five years to develop, its not beyond the realm of possibility that GT5P and GT5 development overlapped. When I worked for manufacturers the development of two models of the same vehicle often overlapped (as one started and the other came to the end), didn't mean they shared the same budget or that we were not able to ID the development costs for each one.

 

[Monatsende]

Any news about PD´s bankruptcy?

 

[Tornado]

You cant answer that gt5p or gtpsp were not included in that budget.

You still haven't explained why a completely unrelated side game should be assumed to be included in that budget estimate for the main game title.

 

[Brend]

Any news about PD´s bankruptcy?

It's non-existent and another incredible creation by the GT6 subforum.

 

[dr_slump]

It may well have taken five years to develop, its not beyond the realm of possibility that GT5P and GT5 development overlapped. When I worked for manufacturers the development of two models of the same vehicle often overlapped (as one started and the other came to the end), didn't mean they shared the same budget or that we were not able to ID the development costs for each one.

Do it the other way round.

GT5 needed 5 years and the costs were 60M. GT5P started at some point with the aim to take what has been done so far for GT5 (for free of course, if we use your method) and the only costs were to make a working stable game out of all those free elements. Quite a possibility, isn't it?

 

[Scaff]

Do it the other way round.

GT5 needed 5 years and the costs were 60M. GT5P started at some point with the aim to take what has been done so far for GT5 (for free of course, if we use your method) and the only costs were to make a working stable game out of all those free elements. Quite a possibility, isn't it?

Its of course possible (and I have already acknowledged as much), but we will never know, what we have is Kaz stating that GT5's development was $60 million.

As I've said I've taken that at face value for these approximations, it also works the other way. The $60 million was the costs up to 2009 (Nov), it doesn't include costs incurred after that date (which we know must exist) yet sales revenue has been included for many years after that date.

Hence the reason I've presented them as approximations, while GT5P and GTPSP development being included would reduce the dev costs for GT5 alone, however post 2009 dev costs for GT5 (and it would have been just for that title) have not been factored in and qould once again increase the dev costs for GT5 alone.

 

[AXEofGOD]

Last time I checked the franchise is able to sponsor numerous events, a racing team, a racing development academy, a video game development team, and still put out high quality games. The franchise as whole is doing great, PD is one of Sony's best assets and the Gran Turismo trademark is at it's forefront. Bust, meh, more like gangbusters!

Just over 70 million copies of gran turismo products sold (multiplied by) $30 = $2 billion (I am using $ because i want to) and $30 is a very low average to start with. So now let's say that all GT products have sold for an average of $50.

$50 x 70,020,000= $3,501,000,000

So 3.5 billion dollars in revenue plus all the console\handheld bundles that were sold strictly because of GT...This series is gangbusters! Everyone can stop worrying PD and GT aren't going anywhere in this century! I don't care if the development costs for 7 cost $200,000,000, it still wouldn't hinder 8, 9 or 10 from hitting shelves by 2030.



I can't wait to get my ps6 / gt9 combo pack in 15 years!