That's a really bad comment considering you only gave your view. A LOT of the world loves their games, albeit that some games are technically bad.Gladion said:
Update: Activision "Might Have to Stop Supporting Sony"
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Upon the fall of PS3, all hail the PC for all their high resolution needs.
That said, I just bought a PS3 so I hope it stands up for a while yet...
That said, I just bought a PS3 so I hope it stands up for a while yet...
You guys realize how bogus this all is, right?
PS3 software sales skyrocketed over 800% last year, the PS2 brought down the Playstation brand in 2008, not PS3. 360 versions barely outsell, if not being outsold worldiwde by, PS3 versions of multiplatform games. And the PS3 install base is larger than the 360's was this time last year.
That's why this Activision Boss' statements hold no weight to them, they only marginally sell more copies on competing platforms (of course the difference is 1 million+ on big sellers).
To make matters worse for this guy, EA, Ubisoft, Konami, and Namco Bandai (4 of the other biggest publishers in the world) ALL make more money on the PS3 than they do on any other platform.
In 2008, EA made more revenue on the PS3 than they did on the XBox 360 and Wii COMBINED.
^ Therefore, ven if Activision pulled giant franchises like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty (which they wouldn't), it would be open season for EA to roll out Rock Band and Battlefield and make a killing with no competition on the PS3, not to mention they could increase incentives for PS3 owners to buy, by utilizing blu-ray to pack in extra content on the PS3 version that they normally couldn't on a DVD. They've already started doing that with The Godfather and Red Alert 3 PS3 versions.
As a PS3 owner, I laugh at this guy throwing around statements like this because the first-party and exclusive partnership studios of Sony have better looking games this holiday season and early next year than anything Activision has ever produced. His company's games are going to get massacred by the amazing content coming out on the PS3 in '09-'10, at least on the PS3 platform.
PS3 software sales skyrocketed over 800% last year, the PS2 brought down the Playstation brand in 2008, not PS3. 360 versions barely outsell, if not being outsold worldiwde by, PS3 versions of multiplatform games. And the PS3 install base is larger than the 360's was this time last year.
That's why this Activision Boss' statements hold no weight to them, they only marginally sell more copies on competing platforms (of course the difference is 1 million+ on big sellers).
To make matters worse for this guy, EA, Ubisoft, Konami, and Namco Bandai (4 of the other biggest publishers in the world) ALL make more money on the PS3 than they do on any other platform.
In 2008, EA made more revenue on the PS3 than they did on the XBox 360 and Wii COMBINED.
^ Therefore, ven if Activision pulled giant franchises like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty (which they wouldn't), it would be open season for EA to roll out Rock Band and Battlefield and make a killing with no competition on the PS3, not to mention they could increase incentives for PS3 owners to buy, by utilizing blu-ray to pack in extra content on the PS3 version that they normally couldn't on a DVD. They've already started doing that with The Godfather and Red Alert 3 PS3 versions.
As a PS3 owner, I laugh at this guy throwing around statements like this because the first-party and exclusive partnership studios of Sony have better looking games this holiday season and early next year than anything Activision has ever produced. His company's games are going to get massacred by the amazing content coming out on the PS3 in '09-'10, at least on the PS3 platform.
Sigh [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91060-Xbox-360-is-Japans-Favorite]Pendragon9 said:
I'm going to step in and say that that is deceptive to say the least.rmx687 said:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=36856&gr_i_ni
Basic translation is that actual revenue for the 360 is larger, but Sony had some differed revenue from other sources (such as DLC) from 2007 that were skewing the numbers and making it appear that the PS3 was generating sales larger than they really were.
To be fair, though, EA has not really supportd the Wii very well, so you are right that the Wii revenue is still very sub par.
To give you an idea of how that adjusted revenue may fit into the picture, in 2007 the XBOX generated 218 million in revenue for EA. The PS3 generated 17 million in revenue. Wii generated 59 million.
The royalty thing could happen but I'm not really sure whether their music department will stop their licensing, considering Sony's current problem is that they have trouble getting all their departments work in tandem.Mornelithe said:
But I don't know. Activision would basically be giving the band game market out to Rock Band if they did this. Not a terribly good idea there.
Old poll sucks. The PS3 still outsells it 3 to 1 and the Wii outsells it 8 to 1. So obviously someone is lying there.MercurySteam said:
Next time don't use some crappy popularity poll to validate your crap. IT only makes you look dumb.
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not, but I just never trust popularity polls, especially when in direct contrast with actual sales.Krakyn said:
It's interesting to see a corporate executive say something this inflammatory in an interview. I'll bet Kotick has talked to Sony directly about this several times and they ignored him, so he's upping the ante by calling them out publicly on it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pachter is entirely right -- this is a bluff. After all, the only thing worse than dwindling sales is none at all; until the PS3 has zero market share, Activision is still turning a profit by developing for it.
But Kotick has every reason to try and put pressure on Sony, just look at what it's costing him: of the almost $4 billion that Activision will sell this year, $500 million will go to Sony for royalties. That's a huge amount of money, probably more than the cost of their entire development staff. For that much, the man expects to get some good returns, and it's clear that it's not happening with the poor market penetration.
Remember, you need to do more than just turn a profit: companies have to meet certain minimum amounts of return. If you aren't making at least 15-20% profit per year on your investement, it was a poor investement; you could have put the money elsewhere and made more.
Was Kotick's comment wise? It's hard to say. I doubt Sony wants to lose one of their biggest third-party developers, but the next time it comes time to negotiate licensing, Sony might not be as willing to deal. It all depends on who has the most to lose, Sony or Activision.
With two other console makers willing to give them a good deal, Activision might not be as dependent on Sony as Sony is on them. I agree with others that, if Activision walked, others might soon follow, completely destroying the PS3. I wonder how much of Sony's Computer Entertainment division is made up by the PS3. Losing their flagship product could be disasterous for a company that's already having trouble keeping up.
Either way, I think Sony needs to say more than just, "No comment." A large distributor like Activision questioning the future of the PS3 is going to have other companies wondering too. First Valve, now Activision -- how many doubts does it take before companies start turning? Even if they don't make their plans public, they have to start reassuring their third-parties, or at least sweetening the deal, of they might end up right where they started: a powerful system with nothing to play.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pachter is entirely right -- this is a bluff. After all, the only thing worse than dwindling sales is none at all; until the PS3 has zero market share, Activision is still turning a profit by developing for it.
But Kotick has every reason to try and put pressure on Sony, just look at what it's costing him: of the almost $4 billion that Activision will sell this year, $500 million will go to Sony for royalties. That's a huge amount of money, probably more than the cost of their entire development staff. For that much, the man expects to get some good returns, and it's clear that it's not happening with the poor market penetration.
Remember, you need to do more than just turn a profit: companies have to meet certain minimum amounts of return. If you aren't making at least 15-20% profit per year on your investement, it was a poor investement; you could have put the money elsewhere and made more.
Was Kotick's comment wise? It's hard to say. I doubt Sony wants to lose one of their biggest third-party developers, but the next time it comes time to negotiate licensing, Sony might not be as willing to deal. It all depends on who has the most to lose, Sony or Activision.
With two other console makers willing to give them a good deal, Activision might not be as dependent on Sony as Sony is on them. I agree with others that, if Activision walked, others might soon follow, completely destroying the PS3. I wonder how much of Sony's Computer Entertainment division is made up by the PS3. Losing their flagship product could be disasterous for a company that's already having trouble keeping up.
Either way, I think Sony needs to say more than just, "No comment." A large distributor like Activision questioning the future of the PS3 is going to have other companies wondering too. First Valve, now Activision -- how many doubts does it take before companies start turning? Even if they don't make their plans public, they have to start reassuring their third-parties, or at least sweetening the deal, of they might end up right where they started: a powerful system with nothing to play.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that they have no games now, only that it suffered from a small launch-time catalog. I'm not saying that as a "fanboy" (FWIW, I'm largely unimpressed by consoles in general, though I do own an XBOX 360 and a Wii), but rather reiterating what I read in many articles during the PS3's launch.Mornelithe said:
My point was that, if Activision decided to stop releasing PS3 titles (and that's a big if), it could spark an exodus of publishers, leaving the PS3 with only in-house development. That would definitely leave the system with "no games to play" and would likely cripple the platform.
Of course, this is all conjecture about something that will likely never happen. My previous post made the point that Activision is likely bluffing. Sales would have to be really bad for Activision to give up on a still-siginificant portion of the market.
Amen to that. I can at least agree there are popular and fun games on the other consoles, whereas I hear this argument over and over again, about how the PS3 has no games.Mornelithe said:
I swear, it's a broken record in surround sound.
And I could swear I've heard predictions from companies like Valve and Activision employees wayy back from 2006, telling how the 360 would've outsold the Wii and PS3 by 10 million, and since they were so wrong, I bet they're getting nervous about their loyalties. They wouldn't drop Sony. No no no. The PS3 is the cheapest of the consoles, so a price drop is just being greedy.
Think about it. 499 for the higher GB models for a PS3, right? Let's consider the 360's current price, plus 300-500 dollars for 6 years of online (ten year life cycle. Remember?)
The Wii plus every single accessory you have to buy to play all their games = well over 1000 dollars.
The PC... well, I'm not even gonna touch that.
The point is that you get what you pay for and so whining about it only makes the whiner look stupid.
The development cost of games on the PS360 is more expensive than the Wii. There is a reason developers think that next generation CG level graphic fidelity is going to cost triple. It's not going to cost triple because of the storage format it's based on, but the development cost of the game itself. Also the Code is multithreaded on the PS3, so later porting of titles from that console to another console with different architecture is not really possible without making the game again. Either way games will be the most expensive to develop on the PS3, with the 360 in a close second, and the Wii in a distant third.paypuh said: