Activision thinks about no longer supporting sony.

Why are so many people taking such polar opinions?

To those who insist they 'can't do this!' or they need to PS3 audience they can do this if it meet their profit margins, the fact they are even saying this publicly means they have thought seriously about it, this is again more evidence of how resources hungry PS3 development is. Yes it IS a difficult system to make games for without Sony backing. if the balce sheet makes more sense without the PS3, also their sinall base is the lowest for the effort. Go figure.

To those that just throw their arms up and say "Bah who needs them"(there were PS3 fanboys who even did this about VALVE :? ) or those going "lulz Ps3 is teh sinking ship!!!11!1!" they are just thinking about it, comapines think of a lot of things. MW2 is still comming to ps3, they have not stoped support yet. EA does this kind of thing very often, remember when they annouced a 50% switch to the wii in 2008? Where the hell did that go? This might all just be wrangling and smoke.

[QUOTE="Ibacai"][QUOTE="stiltzsy"] Why not? If the profit margins aren't where they need to be...they could make only 360, Wii, and PC games. Most gamers will buy the system that has their fav games on...so they will still sell games just more of them on non-Sony systems. I think they are pushing back on Sony after years of Sony PS2 dominance and FU attitude to developers. Payback time.mD-

It probably is a bluff.

But the logic of your post is meaningless. For a company like Activision, the decision to support a platform isn't made just because of one game. The amount of revenue made on COD is irrelevant. If the total costs to support PS3 development exceed total revenues from allPS3 games, then it is a legitimate option to consider shutting the whole thing.

Most important though isnot the absolute contribution. What really matters is relative contribution. If you are making twice or 3 times as much for your investment on Wii, or PC, or even 360 games then you have to question should you redirect your limited resources to something else? And that is the question he is raising. COD PS3 sales/revenue sound great....until you compare them to the $1Billion + Nintendo has brought in on Wii Fit alone. When you see that, you start thinking...maybe I should use my resources somewhere else...somewhere more profitable????

It is a legitimate line of thought. It is also a great way to pressure Sony (and MS).

And frankly, the best long term result for the industry is likely for one or two mega companies to abandon the current excessive cost structure of the HD games and send some shockwaves through the industry.

I dont know about you but i like playing games in high def Im not going back to 480I

[QUOTE="mD-"][QUOTE="Ibacai"] That's a big if on whether or not PS3 users would buy the game on a different platform. It would be a very large gamble by Activision and one that could not only fail but leave them worse off if they try to come back to Sony. I would put money on this being a bluff.-ArchAngeL-777-

There is no doubt Activision is making some profit off of Sony, but could they be making more moneywith Dev time and resources spent else where? I think so, with some games yes.

There is no doubt Activision is making some profit off of Sony, but could they be making more moneywith Dev time and resources spent else where? I think so, with some games yes.

Return-Fire

I agree this has to be a bluff. The COD and GH franchises have sold over 10 million units on the PS3. Thats at least $600 million dollars. OK they have sold more on the 360, but does that mean they can casually throw out what appears to be a massive profit on the PS3? I doubt it...especially not in these economic times. Put it his way: Say your walking down the street and a man hands you a briefcase with $20,000 in it and runs off. As your walking (home or to the bank) with your cash, another man walks up with a briefcase with $12,000 in it. Are you really going to tell him to kiss off because its not $20,000 like the other guy? NO!!! Your going to take $32,000 home or to the bank. I still believe this is a bluff to get Sony more interested in lowering the price. A lower price PS3 = a lot more consoles sold = a lot more Activision games sold. The PS3 does need a price drop, and hopefully this will put just enough fear in them to do so.-ArchAngeL-777-

Your analogy is incorrect. No one is offering you free money, with no other choices.

Activision is investing their money, and they have choices where to invest it. Do you want to invest your money for a 10% return, or a 20% return?

Using your analogy, if there was a third man with $30,000 a block away and I only had time to reach one of them...you bet I would tell the guy with $12,000 to kiss off.

This is the concept of opportunity cost....I can do many things with my money....but I can't do all of them. Should I go after the best opportunties or are they all equal? Again, do you want a 10% return or a 20% return?

There is no doubt Activision is making some profit off of Sony, but could they be making more moneywith Dev time and resources spent else where? I think so, with some games yes.

Return-Fire

Another likely possiblity is that the big name games get made, but as crappy ports with low dev costs.

All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.djsifer01

You just had to insert ignorant fanboyism in what was an excellent discussion.

Sony absolutely needs the publisher ofsome of thebiggest selling titles of this gen. Activision has tremendous clout as has all ready been explained countless times.

It's a good thing that people like yourself are in no position to advise Sony.

[QUOTE="mD-"][QUOTE="Ibacai"] That's a big if on whether or not PS3 users would buy the game on a different platform. It would be a very large gamble by Activision and one that could not only fail but leave them worse off if they try to come back to Sony. I would put money on this being a bluff.SUD123456

It probably is a bluff.

But the logic of your post is meaningless. For a company like Activision, the decision to support a platform isn't made just because of one game. The amount of revenue made on COD is irrelevant. If the total costs to support PS3 development exceed total revenues from allPS3 games, then it is a legitimate option to consider shutting the whole thing.

Most important though isnot the absolute contribution. What really matters is relative contribution. If you are making twice or 3 times as much for your investment on Wii, or PC, or even 360 games then you have to question should you redirect your limited resources to something else? And that is the question he is raising. COD PS3 sales/revenue sound great....until you compare them to the $1Billion + Nintendo has brought in on Wii Fit alone. When you see that, you start thinking...maybe I should use my resources somewhere else...somewhere more profitable????

It is a legitimate line of thought. It is also a great way to pressure Sony (and MS).

And frankly, the best long term result for the industry is likely for one or two mega companies to abandon the current excessive cost structure of the HD games and send some shockwaves through the industry.

Maybe this is why the 360 is getting timed exclusive MW2 multiplayer maps.rybe1025

Probably not. You act as if Activision has all ready decided to make good on this threat or something.

All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.djsifer01

Well I guess they dont need anybody then because all of the multi-platform games are inferior on the ps3 compared to the 360. I guesssony's hardware is toooooo powerful " It's from the future"

[QUOTE="shawn7324"][QUOTE="Cookigaki"]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece

If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony. - Bobby Kotick

Cookigaki thinks this could be bad for sony.

Thunderdrone

Yes, because PS3 and it's games don't exist in the real world. :roll:

settle down kids, we'll see if and when they actually do that which is very weird since they are developing mw2, so if they stop development does that mean that this game's online will stop being supported as well?

lol wouldn't it be funny if they actually do drop and then in the future whena sony console starts selling like crazy then when they try to approach sony and sony is like"F off!" lol that'll be so funny

All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.djsifer01

All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.djsifer01

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.BoloTheGreat

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.BoloTheGreat

Sony is on the chopping block. Activision is doing what most big companies have allready done "DOWNSIZE". Like anything in life, if it's not worth it dont do it

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.edo-tensei

That's just your opinion and thus doesn't have any relevance to whether they can survive on first party titles.

He's just trying to scare them into a price drop.redskins2156

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]All talk, now lets see how it pans out. Sony you dont need Activision anyways, they suck at utilizing your hardware.edo-tensei

Maybe this is why the 360 is getting timed exclusive MW2 multiplayer maps.rybe1025

Like Fallout 3 and GTA4? Nah.

MW2 has timed maps, that's not saying much more than a deal was made.

http://www.totalvideogames.com/Modern-Warfare-2/news/Modern-Warfare-2-Maps-360-Timed-Exclusives-14187.html

M$ paid because they closed down a bunch of 1st party studios to pay for things like this instead. Without COD6 maps and other timed exclusives like Splinter Cell, the 360 wouldn't have that much 1st party or content, that would just be lame.

Obviously, M$ feels this is the better way to spend their money.

AT least the 360 is getting DLC, and timed exclusives.

Sony is on the chopping block. Activision is doing what most big companies have allready done "DOWNSIZE". Like anything in life, if it's not worth it dont do it

TroyM1

they need a price cut cuz if they dont cut the price theyre goint to loose the biggest publisher in the gaming industry

and i dont want that to happen to sonny

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"] Yeah just like they don't need VALVE :roll: , you know pretty soon the PS3 will 'not need' any Third party devs, then all you cows can be happy :)Tragic_Kingdom7

That's just your opinion and thus doesn't have any relevance to whether they can survive on first party titles.

[QUOTE="rybe1025"]Maybe this is why the 360 is getting timed exclusive MW2 multiplayer maps.SolidTy

Like Fallout 3 and GTA4? Nah.

M$ paid because they closed down a bunch of 1st party studios to pay for things like this instead. Without COD6 maps and other timed exclusives like Splinter Cell, the 360 wouldn't have 1st party or content, that would just be lame.

AT least the 360 is getting DLC, and timed exclusives.

I see accusations of "MS paid' flying around often but I rarely actually, scratch that, never, see any proof for it...

And...let's not act like the 360 doesn't have a great deal of first party content coming...

This is part of the reason all cows buy pcs (jk)

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] well technically if you think about it sony's first party games are asa whole better than either ms or ninty so it's posible for theps3 to survive by f party games alone for this gen which i think isn't really that bad because they just keep pumping out awesome games every year. Sony'll probably be in last place this gen but they are defenitelly building a legacy edo-tensei

That's just your opinion and thus doesn't have any relevance to whether they can survive on first party titles.

I highly highly doubt thatActivision will abandon the PS3, so I wasn't arguing with you about that. I was challenging your assertions that because of your opinion that Sony has the best first party games, somehow that will make them able to survive without third parties.

They might as well..all their games sell like crap on the PS3 and they can make more money supporting Wii 360 and PC only

Here's the quote...it's not just that sony is losing market share, but PS3 owners don't buy games and the games cost too much to make them as good as a 360 game. The target is Sony, the once-dominant hardware maker. "I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation," he says. stiltzsy

He doesn't say anything about PS3 owners not buying games. That is your own editorializing. He says the PS3 is losing momentum, which I'm not certain is true, but I agree it is way overdue for a price drop to stimulate new sales. THEN he says that it is expensive to develop for, and the the wii and 360 CONSOLES are selling better.

The reason games on those consoles generate a better return is because of the larger user base for BOTH, and because they are cheaper to develop for therefore meaning more profit per game sold.

There is no evidence that PS3 owners don't buy games.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"] Yeah just like they don't need VALVE :roll: , you know pretty soon the PS3 will 'not need' any Third party devs, then all you cows can be happy :)TroyM1

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]Here's the quote...it's not just that sony is losing market share, but PS3 owners don't buy games and the games cost too much to make them as good as a 360 game. The target is Sony, the once-dominant hardware maker. "I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation," he says. ZIMdoom

He doesn't say anything about PS3 owners not buying games. That is your own editorializing. He says the PS3 is losing momentum, which I'm not certain is true, but I agree it is way overdue for a price drop to stimulate new sales. THEN he says that it is expensive to develop for, and the the wii and 360 CONSOLES are selling better.

The reason games on those consoles generate a better return is because of the larger user base for BOTH, and because they are cheaper to develop for therefore meaning more profit per game sold.

There is no evidence that PS3 owners don't buy games.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="rybe1025"]Maybe this is why the 360 is getting timed exclusive MW2 multiplayer maps.The_Game21x

Like Fallout 3 and GTA4? Nah.

M$ paid because they closed down a bunch of 1st party studios to pay for things like this instead. Without COD6 maps and other timed exclusives like Splinter Cell, the 360 wouldn't have 1st party or content, that would just be lame.

AT least the 360 is getting DLC, and timed exclusives.

I see accusations of "MS paid' flying around often but I rarely actually, scratch that, never, see any proof for it...

And...let's not act like the 360 doesn't have a great deal of first party content coming...

Absence of Proof isn't Proof of Absence. Deals are being made, it's fine, that's the tactic that's chosen, but it's a no brainer to see what's happening, especially with GOOGLE available, and just reading about Fallout 3 DLC, for starters, or MV2 DLC on Google. It's not a big deal, but if you don't believe these companies are working out deals then, don't.

As far as 1st party content, there is a lot less than their should be and has been in the past...but I guess it all works out, since all these companies are so gracious to give DLC and Timed Exclusives, it all works out. I didn't mean the 360 had no 1st party content, my bad, I was quick to type, since I'm in multiple forums right now.

Somehow the stars are aligned. HEre's a link, although I don't know if any links will convince you short of seeing Bill Gates handing over a briefcase of money in a parking lot to an Activision Employee wearing Guitar Hero Peripherals. It's all good. :)

http://www.totalvideogames.com/Modern-Warfare-2/news/Modern-Warfare-2-Maps-360-Timed-Exclusives-14187.html

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

That's just your opinion and thus doesn't have any relevance to whether they can survive on first party titles.

I highly highly doubt thatActivision will abandon the PS3, so I wasn't arguing with you about that. I was challenging your assertions that because of your opinion that Sony has the best first party games, somehow that will make them able to survive without third parties.

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

What's with putting " Cookigaki Thinks." everytime you have an opinion, its a little weird bud.

TR800

[QUOTE="Cookigaki"]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece

If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony. - Bobby Kotick

Cookigaki thinks this could be bad for sony.

shawn7324

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]Here's the quote...it's not just that sony is losing market share, but PS3 owners don't buy games and the games cost too much to make them as good as a 360 game. The target is Sony, the once-dominant hardware maker. "I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation," he says. TroyM1

He doesn't say anything about PS3 owners not buying games. That is your own editorializing. He says the PS3 is losing momentum, which I'm not certain is true, but I agree it is way overdue for a price drop to stimulate new sales. THEN he says that it is expensive to develop for, and the the wii and 360 CONSOLES are selling better.

The reason games on those consoles generate a better return is because of the larger user base for BOTH, and because they are cheaper to develop for therefore meaning more profit per game sold.

There is no evidence that PS3 owners don't buy games.

So? I fail to see what your point is or what it has to do with my comments.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Maybe this is why the 360 is getting timed exclusive MW2 multiplayer maps.rybe1025

Like Fallout 3 and GTA4? Nah.

M$ paid because they closed down a bunch of 1st party studios to pay for things like this instead. Without COD6 maps and other timed exclusives like Splinter Cell, the 360 wouldn't have 1st party or content, that would just be lame.

AT least the 360 is getting DLC, and timed exclusives.

I see accusations of "MS paid' flying around often but I rarely actually, scratch that, never, see any proof for it...

And...let's not act like the 360 doesn't have a great deal of first party content coming...

[QUOTE="TroyM1"]

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] well technically if you think about it sony's first party games are asa whole better than either ms or ninty so it's posible for theps3 to survive by f party games alone for this gen which i think isn't really that bad because they just keep pumping out awesome games every year. Sony'll probably be in last place this gen but they are defenitelly building a legacy edo-tensei

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Like Fallout 3 and GTA4? Nah.

M$ paid because they closed down a bunch of 1st party studios to pay for things like this instead. Without COD6 maps and other timed exclusives like Splinter Cell, the 360 wouldn't have 1st party or content, that would just be lame.

AT least the 360 is getting DLC, and timed exclusives.

SolidTy

I see accusations of "MS paid' flying around often but I rarely actually, scratch that, never, see any proof for it...

And...let's not act like the 360 doesn't have a great deal of first party content coming...

Absence of Proof isn't Proof of Absence. Deals are being made, it's fine, that's the tactic that's chosen, but it's a no brainer to see what's happening, especially with GOOGLE available, and just reading about Fallout 3 DLC, for starters, or MV2 DLC on Google. It's not a big deal, but if you don't believe these companies are working out deals then, don't.

As far as 1st party content, there is a lot less than their should be and has been in the past...but I guess it all works out, since all these companies are so gracious to give DLC and Timed Exclusives, it all works out.

Somehow the stars are aligned.

Never said there wasn't any proof, just that I haven't seen any, ever.

As far as whether or not deals are being made, that much is obvious. Whether or not these deals involve money changing hands, remains to be seen.

When it comes to 1st party content, E3 showed us that there's plenty of that on the way in the form of Crackdown 2, Forza 3, Halo ODST, Halo: Reach and so on. As far as whether or not that's "enough" is purely opinion based.

Reasons this is bad: MW2. If this happened Sony would be in the **** Damn, 10 billion? I didn't know Activision was worth so much. Next-Gen-Tec

Considering how much Activision made with the previous COD's being available on the PS3, this would hurt them. Not to mention the game is due now in about 5 months, and Infinity Ward has spent over a year and a half on the PS3 version, just to flush it down the toilet?

Doesn't make sense, your comment or Activision's. If Activision pulled the plug, it would be on games that don't have much or any PS3 dev time.