Update: Activision "Might Have to Stop Supporting Sony"

[Brotherofwill]

Why would they go through with it? CoD and Guitar Hero and what not still sell millions, I can for the life of me not imagine them spending more time and cash on development that what is well within being profitable already.

If they do however have the required amount of stupidity to go through with it (and this is Activision we're talking about, asses that seem to be trying desperatly to get the gaming public to hate them for some reason) I can only see a shitstorm coming from fans and them losing the last bit of respect (if any) that they have left.

Nice call, dipshits. If I had any respect left for you, I'd have lost it right about now.
Sucks that D3 is in their hands, we should pray to god they don't turn this into a money grabber through Battle-Net or whatever.

 

[Jumplion]

And I know people who won't buy it for that purpose because they don't' want or need to replace their entire DVD collection. And personally if I wanted a blu-ray player I'd get one for my computer because it costs 1/3 what a PS3 does (the player, not a computer, that was a gift)

Anyway trying to get back on topic, I feel that Activision is actually pulling a really big dick move here. Shocking, I know considering how I normally act in regards to Sony, but this kind of grandstanding won't solve anything. In fact it kind of reminds me of gamers going "what about meeeeeeeeee" every time they think a company has betrayed them. Only difference I think this is far worse because it's a goddamn professional acting like an entitled little punk.

Actually, the PS3 is backwards compatible with DVD discs and can play them fairly well as far as I am told. It's a common misconception that you'd have to buy all your stuff again if you bought a blu-ray player, but you don't, and I don't blame people for thinking that. Not even I knew for a while, so I'd suggest you tell your friends this .

And HO-RAY, the transformation is slowly but surely begining.... [sup]mwahahahaha![/sup]

 

[Low Key]

When Microsoft and Nintendo switch to blu-ray next generation, then all of the consoles will be expensive to develop for, so I don't see how complaining about price cuts will help. That has got to be the only thing that cost more money, just to switch formats from DVD to blu-ray. Everything else is just copy and paste.

 

[Jsnoopy]

While Kotick does have a good point, this is a little too far. If Activision did stop releasing games for Sony, it could be a critical hit with no Guitar Hero, or Call of Duty. I don't believe that they have the balls to go through with it though, the fanboys will go even more batshit insane over it than FF13 coming to 360.

And the metal gear 360 release.

Yeah its not like it's coming out on the PC and PS3 also. OH WAIT!! I mean seriously can you even name any 360 exclusives that this years E3? I don't see any 360 games in the future that I'm looking forward to cause their only 2 exclusives are some recycled halo games. Yeah and sonys the one in trouble.

A PC or console will still make money whether they have an exclusive or not. The Halo games will most likely make a lot of money though as well as Mass Effect 2. Plus there is GTA IV DLC as well. Either way the 360 will be making money someway somehow.

I am not a fan-boy. I am just stating facts.

As am I and without console exclusives then whats the point of owning a console. Besides GTA DLC is probably coming to the PS3 and Mass Effect 2 is going to be on the pc. I'm only pointing out whats the point of owning a console with no exclusives?

.....First, I'm 95% sure that the 360 has more exclusives than the PS3, as it has been out a year longer, and MS seems to enjoy pissing off sony fanboys by making previous PS3 exclusives multi-platform. Second, there are plenty of reasons to own a console with no exclusives. Maybe the graphics are better. Maybe the controller is cooler. Maybe the console has more games of your style. Whatever the reasons picking out a console based on what exclusives it has is quite stupid.

...errr, I think that might be a bit backwards (at least in my eyes).

'the 360 has all these games I want to buy, but the PS3 has better graphics!'

'The PS3 looks like it could be good, but the 360 has a better controller!'

'I would buy a PS3, but the 360 has more exclusive games that I want to pay'

Which one out of all of those statements sounds like it makes the most sense to pay hundreds on a console for? There is no way that picking a console based on exclusives is stupid, it's probably one of the smarter decisions to make when buying a new console.

Yeah lol now that I think of it those were rather bad examples. I was trying to say that it is stupid to own a console solely for an exclusive game, and that factors like your price range or your style of play ( I see the 360 as more FPS oriented, the PS3 more japanese games/ RPG's oriented, and the wii as a casual platform obviously.) would ideally effect your console choice more than only what exclusives the console has.

 

[MK Tha Rebel]

It always goes back to the price tag. Look, the PS3 does almost everything, and it does it well. It may be expensive, but it's worth it, and it's reliable. A price cut is inevitable, and then the main complaint about the PS3 will be gone. To my knowledge, the price is the only problem anyone has with the PS3. All I hear is, "I'd buy a PS3, but its expensive!" All Sony has to do is cut the price down some, but the fact remains, the PS3 is worth every penny as it is now. So a price cut would make the PS3 a deal, like getting a Plasma TV for half-off.

I could go on and on about the PS3 and the console war in general, but, I'd be wasting my time. Everyone already has their favorite, and will continue to bash the other two consoles no matter what anyone says. Have fun, can't wait to see it happen all over again in 3-4 years.

Anyway, Activision is pulling the old, "Controversy Creates Ca$h" routine. Would they ever stop putting games on Sony systems? No. Like it or not, Sony is making them money, and no company would dare do anything that would cost them financially. He's bluffing, and he's lying about "returns on investments" just to get Sony's attention, because Kotick wants something from Sony. "The squeaky door gets the grease," as it's been said. But still, he's just trying to get attention...and he did. Let's see what Activision does next, now that they have the spotlight.

 

['Let'sPlay' hosted by Kyle]

maybe if they made good games, people would care more.........

 

[Rednog]

When Microsoft and Nintendo switch to blu-ray next generation, then all of the consoles will be expensive to develop for, so I don't see how complaining about price cuts will help. That has got to be the only thing that cost more money, just to switch formats from DVD to blu-ray. Everything else is just copy and paste.

You make the assumption that games will be entirely disc based, considering the push to make games streamed online or hard drive based a blu-ray transition for everyone isn't necessarily down the line. Also since when has nintendo ever conformed to the standard media, they live in their own magical world of mini discs and cartridges.

 

[Low Key]

When Microsoft and Nintendo switch to blu-ray next generation, then all of the consoles will be expensive to develop for, so I don't see how complaining about price cuts will help. That has got to be the only thing that cost more money, just to switch formats from DVD to blu-ray. Everything else is just copy and paste.

You make the assumption that games will be entirely disc based, considering the push to make games streamed online or hard drive based a blu-ray transition for everyone isn't necessarily down the line. Also since when has nintendo ever conformed to the standard media, they live in their own magical world of mini discs and cartridges.

I believe game companies want to keep producing games on discs because they can significantly raise the price because of the media the data is printed on. Selling just the software would cost much less. If 1,000,000 bought a game for $40, that's $40,000,000. Many more tend to buy a game if it's even somewhat decent, especially if it's multi-platform. Then throw in DLC and it could easily make a few more million for a fraction of dev time as the original game.

Nintendo does what it wants because they have an audience almost as large, if not as large, as America in their own country of Japan. Cartridges are much harder to bootleg than discs or software, which isn't as big of a problem in America because of copyright laws and statutes. Eventually, they'll have to catch up though. Casual gaming is great, but Japan has electronics that are years away from being released in America, and Nintendo needs to start taking that into consideration.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

When Microsoft and Nintendo switch to blu-ray next generation, then all of the consoles will be expensive to develop for, so I don't see how complaining about price cuts will help. That has got to be the only thing that cost more money, just to switch formats from DVD to blu-ray. Everything else is just copy and paste.

No, components and technology drop in price to manufacture as time passes, so if either of those companies ever do it next generation, it will be a cheaper price tag than the PS3. Not to mention the PS3 has the cell, which is very expensive.

 

[MercurySteam]

Well when you think about it the 360 is Japan's favourite console, and just about eveyone who has kids bought a Wii last Xmas. And those who buy the games for the PS3 know they aren't cheap to buy, therefore they mustn't be cheap to produce. Abandoning Sony completely is a daring move, but if the PS3 is in as much trouble as Bobby suggests, this won't do Sony much good.

 

[jodko]

Does anyone think that Microsoft winning this console war and as such moving in on the entertainment industry to be a good thing?
I always assumed that competition pushed people/companies forward and develop new technologies and to be more innovative I hardly see a massive conglomerate like Microsoft dominating the console market(please the wii is more a toy now)to be a good thing. I mean Microsoft has a record of... less then savoury business practises.

 

[MercurySteam]

When Microsoft and Nintendo switch to blu-ray next generation, then all of the consoles will be expensive to develop for, so I don't see how complaining about price cuts will help. That has got to be the only thing that cost more money, just to switch formats from DVD to blu-ray. Everything else is just copy and paste.

Don't be so sure that Blu Ray is the way to go. Apart from the PS3 games and some DVD's I can't see anyone else who really cares about blu ray. And if Nintendo or MS hasn't given two shits about it by now I don't think they ever will. Plus they would have to modify their consoles' current design. Then MS and Nintendo will have to sell DVD AND Blue Ray discs. Nobody will want to pay extra for games just cause they bought their consoles a few years later than everone else.

 

[MercurySteam]

Well when you think about it the 360 is Japan's favourite console, and just about eveyone who has kids bought a Wii last Xmas. And those who buy the games for the PS3 know they aren't cheap to buy, therefore they mustn't be cheap to produce. Abandoning Sony completely is a daring move, but if the PS3 is in as much trouble as Bobby suggests, this won't do Sony much good.

Nor will it do Activision any good, given Sony's control over the Spiderman and James Bond series, as well as all of the Sony music artists currently in Guitar Hero and DJ Hero. Activision doesn't have the balls to cripple 4 of their franchises, over this. Especially given that they just went out and publicizied how many records they're going to smash with MW2. Not going to happen if they don't have the additional 23 million PS3 owners to target as well.

The only James Bond game for PS3 is Quantum of Solace and I dont know anyone who cared about it. And the only Spiderman games on the PS3 are Spiderman 3 and Web of Shadows. Plus all the games I have mentioned here are multi-platform realeases. So as long as MS and Nintendo exist, Activision will have no problem making the big bucks.

 

[Koeryn]

I wonder how many people actually go through and read every comment on a thread like this?

'cause I just did.

Holy Flaming Fanbois Batman! is the only comment that really comes to mind. And that goes for the PS3 Leets, and the Xbox tards. ('cause, you gotta be leet to haz affording a ps3 and yous gotta be tard to own RROD? I dunno).

 

[Rednog]

When Microsoft and Nintendo switch to blu-ray next generation, then all of the consoles will be expensive to develop for, so I don't see how complaining about price cuts will help. That has got to be the only thing that cost more money, just to switch formats from DVD to blu-ray. Everything else is just copy and paste.

You make the assumption that games will be entirely disc based, considering the push to make games streamed online or hard drive based a blu-ray transition for everyone isn't necessarily down the line. Also since when has nintendo ever conformed to the standard media, they live in their own magical world of mini discs and cartridges.

I believe game companies want to keep producing games on discs because they can significantly raise the price because of the media the data is printed on. Selling just the software would cost much less. If 1,000,000 bought a game for $40, that's $40,000,000. Many more tend to buy a game if it's even somewhat decent, especially if it's multi-platform. Then throw in DLC and it could easily make a few more million for a fraction of dev time as the original game.

The thing is that games are already sold in digital format for the PC and it works, via Steam or other download methods. And I would think that companies are actually making more money from it. Companies still charge the same amount whether or not you download it from them or get it on a disc. They don't need to put it on a disc, they don't need to make art covers, don't need to ship it out, and they don't need to deal with a middle man. Also by going to a digital format you gain money by replacing the lost profit from games that are sold used.

 

[Rednog]

All the games you listed, look better and perform better on my PC. Why would I need a 360? Think it's hard justifying the price of a PS3? How about the $2300 I put into my gaming rig?


Morne

I am actually curious as to how you justify a gaming rig that cost you that much. Seems like overkill for a rig, I spent about $600 on my rig, I've run pretty much everything out so far (Crysis, Prototype, etc) on high with no problems. Dumping in 2k into a rig, that thing better last you a long ass time. (This is assuming you built it and aren't a sucker who pays the ridiculous prices at stores.)