Activision thinks about no longer supporting sony.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for PBSnipes
PBSnipes

14621

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151 PBSnipes
Member since 2007 • 14621 Posts

Activision is bluffing. They know a PS3 price-cut will put pressure on MS to cut the 360's price, which would in turn put pressure on Nintendo to cut the Wii's price. Not only would those moves improve Activision's consumer-base immensely, but it would make it easier to sell $120-200 games like DJ Hero, Tony Hawk Ride and Band Hero. I could understand them saying this back in 2007 when developing for the PS3 likely wasn't worth the effort, but these days developers are familiar with the PS3 and no one is going to snub a potential user-base of ~23 million.

Avatar image for jakarai
jakarai

4289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#152 jakarai
Member since 2008 • 4289 Posts

While I'm not a fan of Activision or their games, this could seriously harm Sony. When EA (who were in a similar position as Activision back in 1999) decided not to support the Dreamcast, it was one of the deciding factors in the system's downfall. This is just more indication that Activision is getting too powerful.

Menalque2
Activision doesn't make Madden, Fifa or Tiger Woods though. Activision will not pull PS3 support especially with them reaching 30 million console sold next year.
Avatar image for jakarai
jakarai

4289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#153 jakarai
Member since 2008 • 4289 Posts
You guys keep saying they are the biggest third party publisher. If they pull PS3 support that won't be the case anymore.
Avatar image for Fizzman
Fizzman

9895

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#154 Fizzman
Member since 2003 • 9895 Posts

You guys keep saying they are the biggest third party publisher. If they pull PS3 support that won't be the case anymore.jakarai

read up where someone linked that the PS3 only generates about 8% of Activisions revenue,

Avatar image for jakarai
jakarai

4289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#155 jakarai
Member since 2008 • 4289 Posts

[QUOTE="jakarai"]You guys keep saying they are the biggest third party publisher. If they pull PS3 support that won't be the case anymore.Fizzman

read up where someone linked that the PS3 only generates about 8% of Activisions revenue,

LOL that's because Blizzard is bringing in all the dough.
Avatar image for gensigns
gensigns

1495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 gensigns
Member since 2007 • 1495 Posts

LOL that's because Blizzard is bringing in all the dough.jakarai

hahah - forgot about Blizz

No PS3 version of Diablo 3 = sonyboi river of tears

Avatar image for Jack_Bauer07
Jack_Bauer07

1141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 Jack_Bauer07
Member since 2006 • 1141 Posts

What an empty threat. This will obviously never happen. Activision knows the PS3 makes them money, but they'll say anything to force Sony to drop the price of the PS3.

Avatar image for gensigns
gensigns

1495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#158 gensigns
Member since 2007 • 1495 Posts

What an empty threat. This will obviously never happen. Activision knows the PS3 makes them money, but they'll say anything to force Sony to drop the price of the PS3.

Jack_Bauer07

Yup, just like EA caved and supported the Dreamcast... oh wait!!!

Avatar image for mD-
mD-

4314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 mD-
Member since 2005 • 4314 Posts

There are many possibilties of what could happen now. It's great to see all the different predictions and various points that people have brought up. This is the kind of stuff System Wars needs to make things more interesting rather than idiots posting 10+ Crysis screenshots in topics about graphics.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#160 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

come on activision, sure you may think they suck but who are you going to listen to??? a bunch of bean counters with p.h.d.'s and the people you pay millions to for statistical analysis, or sw ps3 supporters that say don't worry everything is fine with the ps3...:lol:

Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

7054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#161 SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 7054 Posts

What an empty threat. This will obviously never happen. Activision knows the PS3 makes them money, but they'll say anything to force Sony to drop the price of the PS3.

Jack_Bauer07

You haven't been paying attention. PS3 makes them squat.

Avatar image for Chickenesta
Chickenesta

993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#162 Chickenesta
Member since 2005 • 993 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"]LOL Good riddance! I wonder where would they lose more money if porting the game to PS3 or losing the PS3 install base that would buy the game. Anyways, they are talking BS.VoodooHak

I agree that they're probably just rattling Sony's cage. But to have this come from arguably the biggest third party publisher in the industry is telling. And Kotick mentions something the other publishers don't: context.

Sales are great when talking to your constituency on a financial call, but put the sales in conext with the money invested in development and you have a different picture.

QTF And on top of that I think PS3 is still behind where the Wii and 360 is, look at Project Natal, pioneered on the 360 yet the PS3 (which is apparently more powerful??) only launched their on-line services properly a few months ago and DLC is still 'difficult' to push, look at Fallout 3 DLC for example, its been out for months on PC/360 but they weren't able to do anything on PS3 because the tech enabling DLC wasn't there. And then look at games like Gran Torismo, FLAG SHIP PS3 GAME! should have been there shortly after (the delayed) PS3 launch and its still not ready, are these the reasons Activision are pointing out? In my view and its just my view, Sony have really mucked up PS3s entire product 'life', the development was delayed only to produce questionably better graphics than the 360? (I can't see any different), Developers complain about how difficult it is to work with the PS3, Online content has only just been released and now we see Developers talking about dropping the PS3 due to lack of return.
Avatar image for Tekkenloving
Tekkenloving

1546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#163 Tekkenloving
Member since 2008 • 1546 Posts
doooooooooom
Avatar image for Chickenesta
Chickenesta

993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#164 Chickenesta
Member since 2005 • 993 Posts
Oh and I forgot to mention the whole pricing issue, probably best not go there.
Avatar image for deactivated-5dd711115e664
deactivated-5dd711115e664

8956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#165 deactivated-5dd711115e664
Member since 2005 • 8956 Posts

OK, I actually went and read the article, and here are some complaints I have.

1) Activision is whining and crying about Sony and yet they"havea market value of $16 billion (£10 billion) and operating profits of $179 million in the first quarter on sales of $981 million." This compared to Sony who is losing money on every console sold, and whose games division is losing money? So, Sony should lose even MORE money to appease Activision's insatiable greed? F them.

2) Activision has now overtaken EA. Considering the massive amount of money they make selling $100 - $200 games (with even MORE on the way out), as well as World of Warcraft money, it isn't surprising. People complained about a new Madden every year? Hell, how about releasing a new $200 Guitar Hero every bloody year. It is also no surprise that Activision has now official overtaken EA in terms of being d!cks too.

3) Games generate a better return on other consoles? Of course they do because they are cheaper to develop for and have a larger user base. But where was this complaining last gen? I don't remember hearing them complain about the user base of the Xbox compared to the PS2. Makes his complaining sounds more personal towards SOny than actual business. And what happens when the PS3 does drop in price...which is inevitable...and IF that causes sales to take off? Will Activision thank Sony, or do they only shoot their mouth off when not getting their way?

4) "They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow". Uhmmm....since attach rates are an average of the TOTAL consoles sold divided by the average of TOTAL games sold...selling LESS consoles would actually IMPROVE an attach rate. The opposite is also true...having a spike in console sales will result in the attach rate dropping because you are adding a whole new group of consumers who will only have one or two games.

5) When will they drop support? He says when they look at 2010 or 2011, they MAY want to look at whether or not they continue supporting the console. So in other words, in a year or two they may start thinking about actually doing it. In short, this is BS and they aren't goign to stop supporting the console. They are shooting their mouth off to try and cut down Sony in the media and essentially bully them into dropping the PS3s price...which we all know is coming this year anyway. In short, ACtivision is being a jerk.

6) A promo for all the expensive peripheral based games coming out this year? Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with why they are complaining about Sony? Do they really expect every one of these $100+ games to sell like Guitar Hero or Rock Band? Doubtful...and yet they invested millions in making and shipping all these massive games which stores are going to hate for all the space the suck up. But hey, if you can bully people into a price war before Christmas, surely people will be more encouraged to buy more consoles and games!

7) THen what is the deal with AFTER talking about how Tony Hawk's peripheral works, they say such an interface would be ideal for SOny? Seriously, I have no idea what that means or what it has to do with ANYTHING. We already know SOny is getting the TOny Hawk game. Why would a skateboard peripheral be IDEAL for a consoles sales or success? It only works for one single game...it has no impact on total console or game sales.

I am inclined to agree with his overall basic point. Sony is in last place and losing money so they realy need to sell more consoles and games. But to see this article NOW, after a stellar E3 where Sony impressed a TON of people and media and critics? To hear him complain NOW after we've seen the crapload of amazing looking EXCLUSIVE titles SOny has coming out in the next year? And it is just WEAK for him to complain while he is sitting on a pile of cash and SOny is bleeding money. Or for him to say Sony NEEDS a skateboard peripheral? It makes NO SENSE.

The way I see it, Activision has invested so much money into all these new expensive games bundled with peripherals and are only NOW starting to wonder if that was a smart move. They are watering down and flooding their own market. I think they are concerned they've bitten off more than they can chew and are just looking for pre-emptive excuses. "Gee, we would have made more money on all these $200 games if SOny would have dropped the PS3 price, forcing a price war, and therefore we could have sold more copies. It's Sony's fault...not ours for thinking we could release 6 peripheral based $100 - $200 games."

Avatar image for deactivated-5dd711115e664
deactivated-5dd711115e664

8956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#166 deactivated-5dd711115e664
Member since 2005 • 8956 Posts

QTF And on top of that I think PS3 is still behind where the Wii and 360 is, look at Project Natal, pioneered on the 360 yet the PS3 (which is apparently more powerful??) only launched their on-line services properly a few months ago and DLC is still 'difficult' to push, look at Fallout 3 DLC for example, its been out for months on PC/360 but they weren't able to do anything on PS3 because the tech enabling DLC wasn't there. And then look at games like Gran Torismo, FLAG SHIP PS3 GAME! should have been there shortly after (the delayed) PS3 launch and its still not ready, are these the reasons Activision are pointing out? In my view and its just my view, Sony have really mucked up PS3s entire product 'life', the development was delayed only to produce questionably better graphics than the 360? (I can't see any different), Developers complain about how difficult it is to work with the PS3, Online content has only just been released and now we see Developers talking about dropping the PS3 due to lack of return.Chickenesta

What? The tech for DLC on the PS3 wasn't there? You do realize that other companies were releasing DLC way before Fallout 3 was even made right?

Avatar image for Couth_
Couth_

10369

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#167 Couth_
Member since 2008 • 10369 Posts
Activision is just money hungry. But if Sony can't drop the price and start competing more seriously with sales by 2010-2011 then I can see it happening
Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#168 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts
Activision is just money hungry. But if Sony can't drop the price and start competing more seriously with sales by 2010-2011 then I can see it happeningCouth_
Every company is money hungry! :P
Avatar image for Mr_Nordquist
Mr_Nordquist

1777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169 Mr_Nordquist
Member since 2009 • 1777 Posts

[QUOTE="Jack_Bauer07"]

What an empty threat. This will obviously never happen. Activision knows the PS3 makes them money, but they'll say anything to force Sony to drop the price of the PS3.

gensigns

Yup, just like EA caved and supported the Dreamcast... oh wait!!!

There's a difference here though. EA didn't support the Dreamcast because Sega wouldn't stop producing their sports games, and EA wanted a monopoly on that genre.

Activision is threatening to not support the PS3 because they don't make money off of it. We all know Activision won't stop supporting Playstation because we all know Activision is more money hungry than any other publisher in the world.

Avatar image for deactivated-5dd711115e664
deactivated-5dd711115e664

8956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#170 deactivated-5dd711115e664
Member since 2005 • 8956 Posts

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.

mythrol

I think that's the whole point. Activision cares about money too much. Attachment rates on the PS3 is far too low it seems for them to justify the $500 million in license fees they had to pay to Sony last year. Maybe if Sony had went with a cpu-gpu combo that allowed for easy transition from PC to PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360 this wouldn't be a problem, but after reading his comments it seems Sony is simply costing them too much money to produce games and not get the expected returns.

Who cares about how much in fees they paid considering they still MADE MONEY off the PS3. How do you go to stockholders and tell them you are going to eliminate a revenue stream COMPLETELY because you don't think it is big enough? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#171 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

THIS JUST IN: SONYS RESPONCE!!!

"Ummm look here people it's...ummmm some cgi footage of the bestest game evar that we have been keeping secret from you...it's ummm about an...eel monkey...ummmm...who...ummm....has a taaaaannnnnk and...um...he...shooooootsss..stuff...yeah thats it...it's gonna change the industry as we know it!!!

Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

7054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#172 SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 7054 Posts

"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow. If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony."

I think it just comes down to Activision making bad games for the PS3 which no one wants to buy. Other 3rd party devs dont seem to have this issue, lets take a look at 2008's software numbers:

EA: "the PS3 is EA's largest source of income right now, and has been since the beginning of 2008."LINKUpdate: 2008 Full Year Revenue in millions 360 $1,005, PS3 $776, Wii $583 Better Link

Take-Two: "Take-Two list the PlayStation 3 as its biggest revenue generator on the publishing side, with 35% of the quarterly take."LINKUpdate: 2008 Full Year Revenue Mix 360 39%, PS3 34%, Wii 9%. First 6 months of FY 09: 360 32%, Wii 15%, PC 14%, PS3 13% Better Link

Ubisoft: "So far for the fiscal year of 2008, 21% of the publisher's sales have come from the PS3. Of the three home consoles, that is the largest percent"LINKUpdate: This one is largely unchanged: DS 29%, PS3 20%, 360 19%, Wii 18% Better Link
Looks like good games = sales.

Activision: I added this one. Of total 2008 Revenue: Wii 14%, 360 12%, PS3 8%. Of just console revenue (disregard PC/MMO revenue): Wii 31%, 360 28%, PS3 18% Link

EVOLV3

You have cherry picked a bunch of quarterly reports. In most cases, quarterly reports don't mean anything because things can change dramatically by the release schedule and the timing of a single game. I have adjusted those quarterly statements with the full year facts. See above.

The most important point is that PS3 revenue is only 8% of Activision revenue

Above you see the results for 4 of the most important 3rd parties. In aggregate, the PS3 is easily the worst revenue performer for a significant portion of the 3rd party market.

Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#173 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts
[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.

I think that's the whole point. Activision cares about money too much. Attachment rates on the PS3 is far too low it seems for them to justify the $500 million in license fees they had to pay to Sony last year. Maybe if Sony had went with a cpu-gpu combo that allowed for easy transition from PC to PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360 this wouldn't be a problem, but after reading his comments it seems Sony is simply costing them too much money to produce games and not get the expected returns.

Who cares about how much in fees they paid considering they still MADE MONEY off the PS3. How do you go to stockholders and tell them you are going to eliminate a revenue stream COMPLETELY because you don't think it is big enough? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Well they might lose some money, but they wlll cut costs by cutting staff, etc and some people with both consoles will buy for the 360 that may have bought for the PS3 ,so they probably at the end of the day aren't losing vast sums. He wouldn't say those things unless he was trying to force Sony's hand and serious talks hadn't already been going on. I reckon someone at Sony told him exactly what you said and to go jump and hes trying to call their bluff. At the end of the day if Activision did pull Sony support it will only hurt both companies in the long run. Activision need an expanded PS3 base to sell more games in the future is what its all about.
Avatar image for tman93
tman93

7769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#174 tman93
Member since 2006 • 7769 Posts
Im getting sick of Activision. I love Call of Duty but come one, they release a call of Duty and seemingly 2-5 Guitar Heros a year. They don't lose money on the PS3 and they are clearly making an empty threat. However I really won't mind losing Guitar Hero: We can't think of anything else so here are some songs we have already released, and Call of Duty: 217
Avatar image for Couth_
Couth_

10369

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#175 Couth_
Member since 2008 • 10369 Posts

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.

ZIMdoom

I think that's the whole point. Activision cares about money too much. Attachment rates on the PS3 is far too low it seems for them to justify the $500 million in license fees they had to pay to Sony last year. Maybe if Sony had went with a cpu-gpu combo that allowed for easy transition from PC to PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360 this wouldn't be a problem, but after reading his comments it seems Sony is simply costing them too much money to produce games and not get the expected returns.

Who cares about how much in fees they paid considering they still MADE MONEY off the PS3. How do you go to stockholders and tell them you are going to eliminate a revenue stream COMPLETELY because you don't think it is big enough? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't know but working at a bank, I see business close down all the time because they aren't making enough money and it's not worth it. They aren't LOSING money, they just aren't making enough to be worth it. I ask myself that question all the time, even if they are making a little, it's something. But I suppose in business sense, it doesn't make that much sense.
Avatar image for Return-Fire
Return-Fire

134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176 Return-Fire
Member since 2009 • 134 Posts

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.

ZIMdoom

I think that's the whole point. Activision cares about money too much. Attachment rates on the PS3 is far too low it seems for them to justify the $500 million in license fees they had to pay to Sony last year. Maybe if Sony had went with a cpu-gpu combo that allowed for easy transition from PC to PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360 this wouldn't be a problem, but after reading his comments it seems Sony is simply costing them too much money to produce games and not get the expected returns.

Who cares about how much in fees they paid considering they still MADE MONEY off the PS3. How do you go to stockholders and tell them you are going to eliminate a revenue stream COMPLETELY because you don't think it is big enough? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sure activision made more on 360 then the PS3 and I'm sure it was cheaper and easier to develope for the 360. If Sony wants Activision to make games better on the PS3 Sony needs drop the price and increase the userbase of the PS3 instead of bullying with licences of movie games like Ghostbusters.

Avatar image for Mainframe52
Mainframe52

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#177 Mainframe52
Member since 2009 • 150 Posts

blue_hazy_basic

Well they might lose some money, but they wlll cut costs by cutting staff, etc and some people with both consoles will buy for the 360 that may have bought for the PS3 ,so they probably at the end of the day aren't losing vast sums. He wouldn't say those things unless he was trying to force Sony's hand and serious talks hadn't already been going on. I reckon someone at Sony told him exactly what you said and to go jump and hes trying to call their bluff. At the end of the day if Activision did pull Sony support it will only hurt both companies in the long run. Activision need an expanded PS3 base to sell more games in the future is what its all about.

Exactly. Activision is just making threats because they, like everyone else, want Sony to drop the price of the PS3 so the install base will increase and they will be able to make even more money. For a company that's pulling in such a big profit during a global recession, Activision is sure starting to look pretty greedy.

Avatar image for SparkyProtocol
SparkyProtocol

7680

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 0

#178 SparkyProtocol
Member since 2009 • 7680 Posts
I doubt they have the balls to back up that talk but it's still a nasty threat.Floppy_Jim
This statement is pure win on multiple levels.
Avatar image for The_Game21x
The_Game21x

26440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#179 The_Game21x
Member since 2005 • 26440 Posts

It sounds like Activision is presenting Sony with an ultimatum.

"Drop the price of your systems or we drop you."

More consoles in the homes of potential consumers could help boost Sony's attach rate and thus boost sales of Activision's games on the system so Activision could see a larger return on the already high investment of developing for the PS3.

Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

7054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#180 SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 7054 Posts

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.

ZIMdoom

I think that's the whole point. Activision cares about money too much. Attachment rates on the PS3 is far too low it seems for them to justify the $500 million in license fees they had to pay to Sony last year. Maybe if Sony had went with a cpu-gpu combo that allowed for easy transition from PC to PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360 this wouldn't be a problem, but after reading his comments it seems Sony is simply costing them too much money to produce games and not get the expected returns.

Who cares about how much in fees they paid considering they still MADE MONEY off the PS3. How do you go to stockholders and tell them you are going to eliminate a revenue stream COMPLETELY because you don't think it is big enough? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You have no idea whether they made money off the PS3. Activision received only 8% of its total revenue from PS3. We don't know what % of total costs are related to PS3 as the cost structure is not broken down by platform. But it is entirely possible that total cost exceeded total revenue.

For instance, we know that EA posted an overall loss. Therefore, it is quite possible that EA lost money on all 3 platforms, or any combination of them. And we know 360 Revenue was approx 1.5 times PS3 revenue. And we are almost certain that PS3 development cost is higher than 360 development cost. Therefore, we can say with almost certainty that 360 easily made EA more/or lost less than the PS3.

Just like we know that Saturn, Hummer and Saabwere/are all dogs to GM and lose them money which is why they are being cast aside. In this example, cutting off that whole revenue stream is the right thing to do.This is because revenue doesn't matter if your costs exceed the revenue.

Avatar image for mD-
mD-

4314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#181 mD-
Member since 2005 • 4314 Posts

I believe this is a bluff. Anyways, congrats Activision!

ACTIVISION = OFFICIAL THE NEW EA

Avatar image for The_Game21x
The_Game21x

26440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#182 The_Game21x
Member since 2005 • 26440 Posts
I doubt they have the balls to back up that talk but it's still a nasty threat.Floppy_Jim
I don't see why they wouldn't. Sony is the only one who stands to lose big if they go through with it.
Avatar image for Seabas989
Seabas989

13567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#183 Seabas989
Member since 2009 • 13567 Posts

For now I see it as a bluff. However, this reminds me of other systems such as the GC not getting support as time moved on. On a persnal note, it kinda sucks for any consle to not get third party support due to sales, especially if you had a GC and saw games such as Burnout 3 not going to the GC or Resident Evil 4 going to the PS2.In reality, this has happened before and it's buisness. I guess the thought of a big third party publisher saying this about a Playstation console is sort of shocking since the PS1 and PS2 were selling like crazy.

Either way, I don't really like Activision and I doubt that they will stop supporting the PS3 right now. The PS3 is in last place but it will definetly sell more then the original Xbox and Gamecube.

Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#184 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts

I think we should make a online petition boycotting them and stop buying Activision PS3 games! :D

Avatar image for kenakuma
kenakuma

3462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#185 kenakuma
Member since 2007 • 3462 Posts

Activison makes 2 of my favorite games! Spider-man and Call of Duty! So yeah losing them would really suck imo!

Sony should have really left out the Blu-ray player, I guess they thought it would have had the same impact the PS2 had with its DVD player, that however is definetly not the case!

Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

7054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#186 SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 7054 Posts

I doubt they have the balls to back up that talk but it's still a nasty threat.Floppy_Jim

Balls? Surely you mean commonsense?

If they aren't making money on the PS3 why bother supporting it?

Or if they are losing money off the PS3, and don't see that changing, then they would be stupid to continue supporting it.

It doesn't require balls at all. It requires nothing more than an honest self assessment.

Avatar image for hoola
hoola

6422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#187 hoola
Member since 2004 • 6422 Posts

I have no problem with this. The whole point of a company is to make money and that is what they are trying to do. Maybe this whole thing will result in changes for how games are developed and paid for for the ps3 and psp. I think something good could come from this.

Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

7054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188 SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 7054 Posts

I have no problem with this. The whole point of a company is to make money and that is what they are trying to do. Maybe this whole thing will result in changes for how games are developed and paid for for the ps3 and psp. I think something good could come from this.

hoola

Most rational post in the whole thread. Good job.

Avatar image for bphan
bphan

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#190 bphan
Member since 2005 • 1666 Posts

Why would activision continue to spend money on a platform they are not making any money with. Why? Doesn't make sense.

Avatar image for Chickenesta
Chickenesta

993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#191 Chickenesta
Member since 2005 • 993 Posts

I think we should make a online petition boycotting them and stop buying Activision PS3 games! :D

blue_hazy_basic
Fail... Because thats really going to help.
Avatar image for SquatsAreAwesom
SquatsAreAwesom

1678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#192 SquatsAreAwesom
Member since 2009 • 1678 Posts
Guys, clearly Activision's CFO and CEO don't know what they are talking about... *rolls eyes* Some of these replies are kinda sad man.
Avatar image for bphan
bphan

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#193 bphan
Member since 2005 • 1666 Posts

It doesn't help that Sony charges companies for bandwidth use as well. That really sucks for developers who want to make online games for the PS3.

Avatar image for bphan
bphan

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#194 bphan
Member since 2005 • 1666 Posts

Guys, clearly Activision's CFO and CEO don't know what they are talking about... *rolls eyes* Some of these replies are kinda sad man.SquatsAreAwesom

Activison is the only company to say it public but I bet there are hundreds of companies out there who feel the same way. Only takes 1 company to stand up.

Avatar image for Floppy_Jim
Floppy_Jim

25933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#195 Floppy_Jim
Member since 2007 • 25933 Posts

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]I doubt they have the balls to back up that talk but it's still a nasty threat.The_Game21x
I don't see why they wouldn't. Sony is the only one who stands to lose big if they go through with it.

It would be worse for Sony, yes but COD and GH still sell millions on the PS3. Unless other publishers start making similar threats, I don't see it realistically happening. So I doubt it's anything more than an empty threat but it certainly is direct, Sony probably are paying attention.

I think we should make a online petition boycotting them and stop buying Activision PS3 games! :D

blue_hazy_basic

Yeah, I'm sure that would help :P

Avatar image for Javy03
Javy03

6886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#196 Javy03
Member since 2006 • 6886 Posts

[QUOTE="EVOLV3"]

"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow. If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony."

I think it just comes down to Activision making bad games for the PS3 which no one wants to buy. Other 3rd party devs dont seem to have this issue, lets take a look at 2008's software numbers:

EA: "the PS3 is EA's largest source of income right now, and has been since the beginning of 2008."LINKUpdate: 2008 Full Year Revenue in millions 360 $1,005, PS3 $776, Wii $583 Better Link

Take-Two: "Take-Two list the PlayStation 3 as its biggest revenue generator on the publishing side, with 35% of the quarterly take."LINKUpdate: 2008 Full Year Revenue Mix 360 39%, PS3 34%, Wii 9%. First 6 months of FY 09: 360 32%, Wii 15%, PC 14%, PS3 13% Better Link

Ubisoft: "So far for the fiscal year of 2008, 21% of the publisher's sales have come from the PS3. Of the three home consoles, that is the largest percent"LINKUpdate: This one is largely unchanged: DS 29%, PS3 20%, 360 19%, Wii 18% Better Link
Looks like good games = sales.

Activision: I added this one. Of total 2008 Revenue: Wii 14%, 360 12%, PS3 8%. Of just console revenue (disregard PC/MMO revenue): Wii 31%, 360 28%, PS3 18% Link

SUD123456

You have cherry picked a bunch of quarterly reports. In most cases, quarterly reports don't mean anything because things can change dramatically by the release schedule and the timing of a single game. I have adjusted those quarterly statements with the full year facts. See above.

The most important point is that PS3 revenue is only 8% of Activision revenue

Above you see the results for 4 of the most important 3rd parties. In aggregate, the PS3 is easily the worst revenue performer for a significant portion of the 3rd party market.

Actually looking at your updated percentiles and the Activision one you added doesnt really change the picture much. Either way you have the PS3, 360 and/or the Wii with similiar percentiles. I mean heck the activision one, you have the 360 at 12% and the PS3 at 8%, not a huge difference. It would seem smarter to wait for the ineveitable price drop then to drop that 8% your making and hope that those fans pick up the other consoles and make up the profits. I mean heck its seems like Activision is making alot of money off the Wii.

It would be dumb to waste R&D money to make HD expensive games for ONLY one system and ignore the profit that can be made PORTING the game to a second HD system. Its not like they make the game from scratch, they port the game at a fraction of the price as it is to make from scratch and expand their audience by 20-25 million.

Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#197 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts
[QUOTE="Chickenesta"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]

I think we should make a online petition boycotting them and stop buying Activision PS3 games! :D

Fail... Because thats really going to help.

irony is lost
Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#198 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"]Guys, clearly Activision's CFO and CEO don't know what they are talking about... *rolls eyes* Some of these replies are kinda sad man.bphan

Activison is the only company to say it public but I bet there are hundreds of companies out there who feel the same way. Only takes 1 company to stand up.

i though that already happened with valve

Avatar image for mD-
mD-

4314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#199 mD-
Member since 2005 • 4314 Posts

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]I doubt they have the balls to back up that talk but it's still a nasty threat.SUD123456

Balls? Surely you mean commonsense?

If they aren't making money on the PS3 why bother supporting it?

Or if they are losing money off the PS3, and don't see that changing, then they would be stupid to continue supporting it.

It doesn't require balls at all. It requires nothing more than an honest self assessment.

Ok, if Activision had been losing money up to this point? Don't you think they would have dropped the PS3 before now? Also, PS3 is just picking up its momentum off of E3. In addition, I've heard that porting games to the PS3 isn't THAT costly (I'm not certain). I believe Activision is concerned for it's sales of its more expensive games in the future and want to be as profitable as possible so they are putting pressure on Sony to drop the price, so they can sell more DJ Hero's and Guitar Hero's (their more expensive products).

They don't have any trouble selling Call of Duty's. Just because it's more expensive to develop for doesn't mean you can't make a lot of profit off it. Call of Duty 4 sales on PS3 = 4.34 MILLION (according to VGchartz) They've probably made over $170 MILLION from this game... Please tell me why you would drop support for this game. I don't care if the game cost 60 million to devleop. You are STILL generating a revenue of $110 million.

I'm sure it costs no where that amount to develop this game. The only problem I could see is the amount of time it may take to develop, but they pulled it off with Call of Duty 4 and the game still ran well on the PS3.

This is a bluff people. Activision wants to make more money that's all.

Avatar image for TroyM1
TroyM1

298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#200 TroyM1
Member since 2006 • 298 Posts

your petition wouldnt be very big lol