EndSights: Yesterday, there was a tremendous amount of hub-bub about Activision CEO Bobby Kotick's comments about his company potentially removing support from Sony's PlayStation 3 console. So how likely is it?
Agree 100%. Everyone knows that multiplatform is more money in their pockets. Do you really think that they would stop making the ps3 games when 40% of their revenue was thanks to the ps3? I would not be a happy share holder, meaning that the chairmen would have to take hash measure, whatever they would be.
Activisions consists of greedy bastards. I mean they sold more than 4.5 million COD4 on PS3. Yup that isn't as high as 360 sales mainly due to that extra 7 million 360's out there, but still nearly 4.5 million are AAA sales. Have they lost their marbles!!! Even if a game sells more than 2-3 million units, then too it reaps great profits for the developers and here is this company who repackages a music game every six months and sells it for 200$ (with drum kit and various peripherals) and still demand more money from Sony? COD is the only Activision game I have played this gen and that is the only reason I respect IW (not AV but IW..). If it weren't for it, I swear I would never touch another AV product in my life. Just club those PS3+PS2+PSP numbers from last year and nearly 45% of AV's revenue comes from it. I think Sony should themselves threaten to cut AV support. Do you really think AV has the balls to ditch Sony and cut half their revenue? What will the CEO answer to the stock holders? Yup AV, if you have the balls then ditch Sony. And then happily give that 'biggest 3rd party dev' crown to EA cause you won't even make it to the top 3 without Sony.
did you read the article? it wasn't even 40% of the console revenue let alone total. The wii had the largest console revenue, and it wasn't even at 30% of the revenue. If they do slow support, it would probably be more of a cutback than a complete stop. For smaller games that they don't expect huge sales for they might not find it worth the royalties/development cost.
Some devs are already dropping support and or supporting the 360 equally when they did not before.
No it wasn't... better go check again. As for multiplatform development... there's always the PC market. 360 + PC game versions.
Activision is trying to pretend they're the next EA (history lesson: go look at how Electronic Arts threatened SEGA when the Dreamcast came out, and then they followed through by not supporting the system). Yet, Activision would be stupid to stop supporting Sony. Why? Because the PS2, PSP, and PS3 combined is their biggest money-maker (by FAR). I mean, what sense does it make to abandon a company with the most systems on the market (and also the highest-selling system, i.e the PS2)? Mark my words: in the next couple of days/weeks, we'll see the guy at Activision who said this either fired, or we'll see them make an official retraction of their statement. And Activision really doesn't have the balls to go through with this. Need proof? Show me the last major exclusive that Activision made. Yeah, exactly. In other words, they can't AFFORD to cut out platforms. It's not in their blood.
you guys don't understand the basic idea that if Activision drops the PS3 they will be able to devote those resources to making new IPs for the Wii and the 360 that could generate more sales and profit for them than a PS3 port. this is what the executive was saying in the interview. Activision did the same thing to the Dreamcast. Game publishers don't want three different consoles because it costs them money. Console devs want one console. eventually the publishers will actively try to put console(s) out of business to maximize profit.
@read disc error What new IP's? If they have all these new great ideas up their sleeves, where are they? Where is the evidence to support that claim, 'new IPs for the Wii and the 360 that could generate more sales and profit for them than a PS3 port' let alone to sell it to the Board and shareholders?
"(history lesson: go look at how Electronic Arts threatened SEGA when the Dreamcast came out, and then they followed through by not supporting the system)." I might be wrong but if it actually worked and the dreamcast failed. Isn't that a bad thing for Sony?
MMOs are Activision's biggest earner BY FAR! it's not even a competition. @"What new IP's? If they have all these new great ideas up their sleeves, where are they? " singularity is coming later this year. Prototype just came out. Blur is coming later this year.
He was trying to pressure Sony into lowering the price of the console so that more people would buy the PS3, and the Activision games. If you really think a company would just walk away from millions of dollars then you're an idiot. They make money off the PS3 they just want more.
It's not that simple. It is true that if Activision were to cut the PlayStation consoles out they would be able to reallocate those resources else where. But there is also the fact that the revenue from the PlayStation product family would be lost. At the moment, it seems as though The PlayStation product line is still profitable for them. I believe that it goes back to there stupid ass peripherals. They know that people don't want to pay $400 and then drop $120 on a fake skateboard. Sony is not in a position to be strong armed by Activision. If anyone is going to strong arm them it's going to be retailers such as Wal-Mart or Best Buy. The fact is that this should have been left between Sony and Activision. Kotick should have started a dialog with Sony where he could have voiced his concerns to them and gotten a run down of how they are planing to expand their install base. This leads me to believe that he doesn't care about the install base at all but purely the price. They are going to have a harder time selling PS3's plus Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk peripherals.
@ The Lazy One 'singularity is coming later this year. Prototype just came out. Blur is coming later this year.' Do you think revenue of these titles on 360 is going to replace the revenue generated on sales of all available Activision titles on PS3? That's what I'm getting at. A company doesn't just drop a revenue stream without one to replace it.
Maybe all of you should take the lead jobs in Activision seeing how you know whats best for then and know more about the company's needs more than they do.
@ duh Maybe you should remove the fanboy goggles and try to view this from a business perspective. All your fanboy rhetoric has proven nothing.
The price of porting a game like MW2 to PS3 is not much when compared to the massive profits it will rake in. Activision would go down as one of the stupidest game companies in history is they abandoned multiplatform games on PS3. Now I can understand if they don't make a PS3 exclusive, but not doing simple ports would be absurd and one of the worst decisions in gaming history!
This is what happens when they can't counter your argument; They fall back on sarcasm.
Isn't it amazing how an attempt at intelligent discourse always devolves into a pissing contest?
Kind of like how you and other 360 fanboys think you know better how to run Sony and they absolutely need to drop the PS3 price?
It's to hypothetical. It's like trying to guess the weather to the day for next june. There's just too many unknowns. The capital could be used to shorten the development time on franchises as well as on new ips, and there's no telling how many new ips could be made. There's just way too many unknowns.
“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." It doesnt say he is "concerned" about the psp or ps2 just the ps3. They could drop support for the ps3 and still support the ps2 and psp. Also the ps3 doesnt make up 40% of their revenue it only makes up 18%. Also if they drop ps3 support the money they make from the 360 go up as it will be the only way for people to play some games. However money is money so I doubt they will drop the ps3
I agree, Activision was threatening because they wanted more money so they wouldn't just drop the PS3 like that.Even that "little bit" of money is better than none.
I say let Activision drop the PS3. Plenty of other developers with much better games are willing to take their place and make money off it. Activision is lame, so lame that they had to merge with Blizzard just to get a piece of WoW, and so now they think they can talk. Sony isn't about to lose money just so Activision can make more. And that's the real bottom line here folks. Not what resources Activision can shift to other projects, or anything like that. Bottom line is someone will lose money, and Sony has more options than Activision does. There are only 3 consoles for publishers to put games on (not including PC), but dozens of developers to choose from to make games for the PS3. Who has the upper hand now?
Why do people even bother with this crap? Look they already have to much money invested in the PS3 ports to cut them off now. Which means everything that is slated for 2009 will drop. Oct 1 Sony will drop the price along with the release of their over priced PSP Go. Activision will be happy because PS3 sales will be up by at least 40% over last year and Sony will be happy because they will sell huge numbers from Oct up until GOW3 drops. Now if GT5 where to magically appear in the 2009 holiday window, holy crap talk about a big christmas. I know a bunch of people who want a PS3 who are waiting for GOW3/GT5 and/or a price cut. They will get both and I expect Sony to sell all 13 million consoles like they said they would. Then At 36 million consoles no one will ever compare this system to the Dreamcast and we can end this foolishness. Please 360 fans mark this down! I don't care if 360 out sells PS3, I just want these stupid arguments about PS3 is dead to die. and When they reach the 35 million consoles it will die.
more likely to be BS
and that CEO who said this is STUPID!
they dont have the balls to!
More like they aren't stupid enough to.
if they did they would lose out on 6-7 million mw2 sales
Activision, as a big third party publisher, have their success linked to the platforms they publish on. Activision have to publish on as many platforms as possible and, hopefully, sell to as many people as possible. For Activision to be a success, Sony have to be a success (and Nintendo and Microsoft and Apple), because it gives them more people to sell to. They won't abandon the PS3, it's just Activision trying to push Sony (who won't want to lose games like CoD or Guitar Hero) to drop the price and get more consoles into homes.
And the CEO feels that hes powerful enough to "scare" sony into a pricecut for the PS3. The mention of the PSP was supposed to validate his statement too, but no one will call their bluff.
iPhone/iPod Touch games.
I forgot aboot those.
ActiBluffzard the bluffing videogame publisher with MASSIVE common sense failure
I Like Blizzard, to bad they merged with Activision.
The way i look at it, maybe they'll keep the COD series on the PS3, but drop all other support with games that are new IP or games like guitar hero that might profit from the ps3 version, but not enough profit to go though the hassle to port it to the ps3.
well only time will tell what activision would do. I dont think it will happen. LOL Maybe he`s trying to scare sony...hes doing a horrible job at it.
but they won't, it's that simple.
all the fanboys who actually wish some sh1t like that are fail. and nowhere near being a true gamer. hey assholefaces, be a gamer, and stop being haters. sh1t makes me sick.
Either way, i bet he got a bollocking off a few people at activision for saying what he said. The playstation platform overall delivers a large amount of activisions profit, the PS3 delivers the right amount of game sales in relation to its install base, on activisions games. If i was sony, while it would be a big risk - i would PUBLICALLY call him on his bluff, for one reason and one reason only, he had no place at all saying that for activision. A nice big "Oh, alright we'll make the first move, we won't be approving ANY of your games you submit for certification from now on".. Millions gone down the drain for the PS3 versions of games they are developing.. that would shake things up.
I reckon it's just a bluff as well, but I think it does highlight 2 things: 1) It IS more expensive to develop on the PS3 and 2) The PS3 itself is still too expensive. I'm not trying to troll or be a fanboy, I'm just saying that even developers are saying this - big developers, this is what more than just a few fanboys seem to think. I've no doubt that Sony will be committed to dealing with both of these points in the near future, but still it's something to think about the next time someone accuses Microsoft of "buying" multi-platform titles. Maybe the "ease" and "cheapness" is what's really swaying more developers?
I don't think anyone would call you a fanboy for saying the PS3 is too expensive, yes - there will be those saying that it is great value for what you get, but the fact it is is TOO expensive for a ___games console___ that is nearly 3 years into its life cycle in the US (only just past its second here in europe).
Yeah and I think you've hit it on the head. Activision isn't saying that, on a whole, what you get for the price of a PS3 isn't great, what they're saying is that what you get for the market they aim for isn't as good. As far as they're concerned, the 360 and the PS3 do the same thing and appeal to the same audience they want, but one is a lot more pricey than the other, both in terms of actual retail costs and development costs. Activision don't care about blu-ray films or sales, nor do they care about peripheral costs (other than their own), reliability, game installs or any of the other things we all argue about on a daily basis, they just want as many people to be able to buy their games as possible, at as little cost to them as possible.
I hope Activision does it. We need more drama going on in the gaming world. It's getting too stale lately. I'll favor anything that kicks Patcher in the nuts.
lol What would happen if activision does it? Anyone want to contribute some ideas?
More 360 sales and less PS3 sales possibly influencing other small developers to think PS3 support through in a sort of chain reaction based on smaller projected PS3 sales.
Yeah that would happen. But sony has first party studios. They could pump games out like no tommorow. Only problem would be if its a "hit" or miss" game.
I'm not talking about what Sony has in their first party lineup you asked a question and I gave an answer based on Activision's top selling console pushing franchises that sell more copies of their software than most games regardless of 1st, 2nd or 3rd party status. PS3's top selling game is from Activision so if people want to play those games what Sony has in first party is irrelevant. If I wanted to buy a console for Guitar Hero I wouldn't care if the console had Halo or uncharted. If this was to happen and devs seen that consumer support for PS3 was being diminished because of it, devs will think a little harder when it comes to solid PS3 support.
It could genuinely mean the end of the PS3. At the very least, it would secure its third place this generation. This actually happened before about 10 years ago with the dreamcast. The then-biggest publisher in the world, EA, said they wouldn't support the console unless it sold 1,000,000 units in 3 months. It did it in 1 and EA still didn't support it. And we all know that, despite the Dreamcast having an amazing lineup of games (particularly 1st party titles), it wasn't enough to keep it going. EA is no longer the biggest publisher out there - Activision is. This is serious stuff and even if it is a bluff, Sony really shouldn't risk it.
In my opinion sony would go straight to EA offer discounted rates for sony music for their rockband games and extra incentives if they are PS3 and wii exclusive(sony does not see wii as real competition for its marketshare), covering guitar hero. Sony would proceed to withdraw all its movies IPs to activision and others buying a small studio to pump them out exclusive to sony. Call of duty is difficult as it has a dedicated following I would say they would splinter zipper and hire more devs for it on one side creating games like socom and mag the other creating games like call of duty. If I was sony this is what I would do.
@ Kushan What were EA's reasons? The Dreamcast ran on Windows CE, the PS2 was clearly harder to develop for, yet they dropped Sega. Dreamcast launched earlier than the PS2, etc. This situation is almost the polar opposite. So again I ask what were EA's motivations, as compared to Activision's stated motivations?
well one thing i am sure is that EA will laugh like there is no tomorrow. Sales of Rockband will go through roof on PS2 and PS3. both SONY and activision will take a big hit. they both lose, EA wins. Oh, so does microsoft.
EA's reasons are irrelevant, it doesn't matter why they did it, just that they did. The outcome was still the same.
I disagree Kushan. If this is to be an apples to apples comparison, motivations are extremely relevant, otherwise the situation only appears outwardly to be the same, while the chances of it actually occuring and yielding the same effect are different.
Did you read the thread's original poster? He asked what would happen IF Activision did it, not if activision would do it or not. Thus, motive is irrelevant because in this discussion, we're talking specifically about what would happen if activision pulled support for whatever reason. comment on a different thread within this news post to discuss reasons for why they might do it.
Yes, I read his question. I'm only challenging that IF they did it, that the PS3 would not necessarily go the way of the Dreamcast. Trying to follow history's roadmap so to speak, and see if indeed Sony is on the same path by examining the similarities/differences of the underlying causes.
If Activision Blizzard pulls support from the PS3, other publishers like Vivendi, could follow suit and this would lead to the end of ps3. I don't think they will go that drastic but they ARE losing a lot of money, because developing on ps3 costs in the hundreds of millions. They've even complained about the middleware. What I see is certain games just going PC/360 exclusive, such as Singularity, Prototype or other games and them ramping up their Wii games. I could see them moving the Call of Duty series there instead, unless it starts selling over 6 million copies on the ps3. That would maximize install base for 360 in NA & Europe, turning up the volume. Those people aren't buying the games and Activision Blizzard isn't in the business of supporting movies. Sony will drop the price, it's already been confirmed for Tokyo Game Show. The question is will it be in time, because Activision is definitely going to pull some of its games off the lineup - rather than drop all support.
If Activision drops the PS3 here is what I Think would happen. Some other company like EA or Take2 will have less compitition on the PS3 Platform and take in more money then normal(filling the void), this in turn will promp said company to develope more for the PS3. AV Will nolonger be the number 1 3rd party developer and in the long run will lose money 18 percent more to be exact, This will leave Sony with the decision to Drop Activision from PS2 and PSP if need be. XBOX 360 will not make more profit then normal like some suggested, That is Impossible, who the heck would buy the 360 just for Activision games? Sony at first will lose some money until another Developer fills the void, but whoever fills that void will be very happy.
for sony to have a $199 console so early in it's 10 year life cycle is stupid.sony is not working with a 5 year product.it's a 10 year product. ps1 was a 10 year product. ps2 will be a 10 year product. psp is going on 5 years.and sony wants 5 more with psp go. if a system plays cds,dvds and upscales them,bluray,has a web browser,bluetooth support,hdmi support,7.1 support,1080p support,upgradeable hard drive support,motion control support,streams movies,tv shows,music because of the web browser,plays ps1,ps2(mine does),ps3 games,usb support,wifi support,etc...etc.....ecta fricken setera, you mean to tell me that $399 is too expensive?get the f#ck out of here with that.it's too fricken cheap. activision is just trying to sell way over priced bullsh!t that works for one game as they have been doing with their music game. STFU with all this "ps3 is too expensive."GTFO of here!" apocalypse................... ..
I think in this recession that would be "assumed" as expensive. Im just saying man.
i dont think the ps3 is too expensive personally but for mass market it is.on the ps3 has a 10 YEAR LIFECYCLE that is rubbish if it does not sell well and publishers drop support sony will have no choice how long its on the market.the ps1/2 only had a long shelf life because of their massive dominance and sales.if the xbox1 had sold 60 million in its first few years it would still be supported now.sony only say they want a 10 year life cycle because they thought they would rule the market once again but if ps3 is a failure (sales wise)it will be dropped in the next 2years or so
I Also think the PS3 is not to expensive, Free Internet, Great games and Blu ray just to name a few things, It'll last 10+ years, It's Blu ray alone will see to that. Wii is Over priced, funny how nobody says that, With It's Great install base, and not much features and yet $250.00. Then you need to buy a Lan Adapter. The 360 is Priced ok but Arcade needs to be Less. My two cents, Take it how you want. This is not from a developers point of view, It's from the most Important point of View, A Buyer.
I personally am a little questioning of Activision's motives on this. The PS3 has a strong install base and a loyal following,perhaps lacking somewhat in NA but still by no logical means 'failing'.MW2 will do a disgusting amount of sales as it stands now,on both platforms without a doubt.It stands to reason that the 360 numbers will be greater,it is more affordable and has the benefit of a year+ of exposure.The PS3 could(reasonably) do with a price cut but to presume rather insist that it gets one in order to accommodate the impending arrival of MW2 isn't realistic or fair rather greedy and underhanded.I suspect that unseen 'machinations' abound in this despite Activision's claim to the contrary. I sympathise with the price cut school,hell I paid 649$ cdn.for mine,but I also believe it is Sony's decision and they will do it when they choose not because Activision feels it right.
YES BUT sony HAS 2 GENS OF DOMINANCE BEHIND THEM AND 8 YEARS EXTRA IN THE BUISNESS THAN ms PLUS SHOULDNT PS3 EXTRA TIME BE AN ADVANTAGE TO SUNY GAMES WISE(CLEARLY NOT WITH THE MULTI PLATS)
Two things #1 - The PS2 accounts for $284 million or 21.95% of console revenue. The PS3 accounts for 241 million in console based revenue which is 18.62% of console revenue. Together that's 40.57% of their total console based revenue and 17.34% of the total revenue. There is no way that are going to piss of Sony by withdrawing support from the PS3. If they drop the PS3 and Sony responds by pulling the PS2, suddenly Activision is 20% smaller and it console business is 60% smaller. The board wouldn't let that happen. This guy would be out and the PS3 would be back in before Activision would miss a single PS3 or PS2 release date. #2 - Is all of the MMORPG revenue attributable to Warcraft? Now, THAT is a monster. It is practically the same size as all of Activision's console business added together, and one-third of their total revenue.
this guy should be fired for even saying something so ignorant.