Activision "might stop supporting Sony"

By Games Industry.biz Published 19 June, 2009

Unless PS3 drops in price, says Kotick.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has said that his company may have to stop supporting the PlayStation 3 if Sony does not drop the price of the luxury console.

"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," said Kotick to The Times.

"When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console — and the PSP [portable] too."

According to the report, Activision paid USD 500 million in royalties to Sony last year which, "probably still worked out at 400 per cent of the profit they made".

He added: "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."

Big releases from Activision this year include a reinvigorated Tony Hawk title complete with peripheral, DJ Hero, the latest spin-off of the popular Guitar Hero franchise, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which Activision expects to be the "biggest entertainment launch of all time".

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (208) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • rotmm #1 3 years ago

    I might stop supporting Activision unless they reduce the ridiculous price of their plastic accessories. Games too would be nice.

  • dsmx #2 3 years ago

    Posturing and lies, activision won't stop supporting it so long as people keep buying activision games.

  • kangarootoo #3 3 years ago

    I'm not so sure. Percentage return on your investment is an important issue. No company has endless funds, so they want to make the most profit on each £ invested. And right now they are saying that profit return is smaller on PS3 developments.

  • Buztafen #4 3 years ago

    Why are all Activision games so overly expensive? Ive seen some with an extra £20 on top of other companies games released at the same time!

  • chudders #5 3 years ago

    Yeah that would be an awesome outcome. You spastic.

    Edit: @farticus
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 14:43

  • drumbaby #6 3 years ago

    So if Activision did that, and then wanted to make games for other platforms based on Sony movie and music licences...what then?

  • JahB #7 3 years ago

    Posturing and lies, activision won't stop supporting it so long as people keep buying activision games.

    if the number of people that buy the games do not cover the production costs (which seems to be the case atm), then this is neither posturing nor lies, just a business decision.

  • Les #8 3 years ago

    "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."

    This is complete and utter bullshit so I guess he was misquoted. The other option is that the guy is an idiot. Given his function that's not completely unrealistic...

    For those that don't get it: The number of games each console owner buys isn't dependent on the price of the console. A price drop won't make me as someone that already owns the console all of a sudden buy more games. So the attach rate has nothing to do with this. It would even drop if the price of the console was reduced as more people that buy relatively few games would get one (the non-hardcore).

  • woodnotes #9 3 years ago

    in before ps3lol

  • woodnotes #10 3 years ago

    ps3lol

  • carlitoswagon #11 3 years ago

    Do you think Bobby's a secret 360 fanboy? ; )

    Sounds like it.......

    Can't see it happening. He does have a track history of talking complete shite!

  • Petulant_Radish #12 3 years ago

    Les is a silly willy

  • Fleeby #13 3 years ago

    This is serious, fellow PS3 owners. You can slag him off all you like but for him to come out and say something like that on the record (and this is from the publisher of MW2) is not a good omen. At all.

  • BillyBrush #14 3 years ago

    Ouch

  • Les #15 3 years ago

    "You totally missed the big picture, by focusing on one incorrect point. A PS3 at £299 or whatever equivalent is not growing the next-gen market and that is something that affects the bottom line. More consoles = more potential sales."

    That's a rather rash conclusion and one not supported by logic.

  • _LarZen_ #16 3 years ago

    I pitty the people that cant efford the PS3...

  • Triggerhappytel #17 3 years ago

    I genuinely hate Activision. They clearly don't give a flying fuck about anything but raw profit, and they have such an abhorrent business model that unfortunately works very well. Barely a week seems to pass by now when Kotick doesn't make some irritating remark or other. It's just a shame that they're so arrogant because ActiBlizz are doing so well.

    I can't see them genuinely stop releasing PS3/PSP games because they would instantly lose access to 20/50 million potential customers immediately, but it is surprising to hear this nonetheless. Seems like Sony's hand might soon be forced with a PS3 price drop...?

  • JahB #18 3 years ago

    I pity the people that can't afford a dictionary

  • Zomoniac #19 3 years ago

    For those that don't get it: The number of games each console owner buys isn't dependent on the price of the console.

    Are you sure? Every time a new console comes out I allocate £500 or so to it. With that I buy the console, a second controller, required accessories, and as many games as the rest of the budget will allow. Buying a £100 console and a stash of games as a Christmas present is much easier than buying a £300 console with a similar stash of games.

  • Fleeby #20 3 years ago

    Triggerhappytel: "Seems like Sony's hand might soon be forced with a PS3 price drop...?"

    That's precisely the point.

  • Hermiod #21 3 years ago

    One side effect this might have is that Activision will almost certainly lose the James Bond franchise.

  • Bloodhunter #22 3 years ago

    dont turn this into a rage-fest

    i may stop supporting my ps3 soon, well i have, havent bought a game for it since KZ2

    PC all the way :)

  • Dizzy #23 3 years ago

    I thought we all hated EA? Now we hate ActiBlizzard as well?

  • laudy #24 3 years ago

    Mr farticus,

    I can't remember if you own a ps3 or not but thanks for your concern.

    Sony don't just focus on computing, they've never been a "sell it cheap, pile it high" organisation so what this guy from Activision says really doesn't matter. Everyone is concerned about their bottom line, particularly in today's climate.

    He said they "might" stop supporting Sony but in my opinion, they won't.

  • cam_guin #25 3 years ago

    Chances are if other industry bigwigs are thinking the same, more voices join the cause and might effect change...im sure theres something bubbling under the surface though to go public with this 'threat'...

  • Fleeby #26 3 years ago

    Dizzy: Don't forget we all apparently hate some developers too – even Valve.

  • Dizzy #27 3 years ago

    Ha yes.. those "lazy" people at Valve.

  • Avaloner #28 3 years ago

    @ Les
    There could be some truth in the attach rate issue. You see. If I save 100€ when I buy an Xbox 360 versus buying a PS3 then I have more money to spend on games.

  • kangarootoo #29 3 years ago

    @Fleeby

    +1

  • Wander #30 3 years ago

    I reckon this is Activision using hard nose techniques to reduce the PS3 royalty payment before they launch Modern Warfare 2 and DJ Hero. Activision is firmly in the driving seat because Sony requires big games on the PS3. Meaning Activision can bully Sony into reducing the royalty payment.

    If Sony refuses, Activision can make Modern Warfare 2 a timed 360 exclusive; this will move PS3 owners to 360 which is the last thing Sony need right now.

    Sony take note, strengthen your first party titles (and 3rd for that matter) then you can call the shots once more.

  • kangarootoo #31 3 years ago

    @Triggerhappytel

    "They clearly don't give a flying fuck about anything but raw profit"

    You show me a multinational that is any other way, and I'll show you a pig in a biplane.

  • Macross #32 3 years ago

    Triggerhappy, no big company gives a flying fuck about anything apart from raw profit. Activision are worried because they arent making enough margin per unit sold to cover the ps3 versions of their games (or maybe they do but not enuf for their shareholders) so its only natural to at least shake their spears a bit to see if they can change things. Dont forget the biggest profit skimmers are usually retail and first parties followed by publishers and then devs usually come in last (altho every deal will be different)

    Whether they follow through or not is another thing.

    Also I doubt theyd lose the Bond movie license why would Sony risk yet more royalties from actibliz? im sure they make a fair whack out of every bond game sold off that too.

  • Fleeby #33 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    +1

  • muscleblade #34 3 years ago

    "I pitty the people that cant efford the PS3... "

    I pitty the people that buy a PS3 even if they can afford it, when theres a much better console on the market for a lower price.
    I can afford plenty of PS3s. I just dont need one. I already have a very good Blue ray player and the best gaming console on the market. Actually i have two.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 15:14

  • Les #35 3 years ago

    "There could be some truth in the attach rate issue. You see. If I save 100€ when I buy an Xbox 360 versus buying a PS3 then I have more money to spend on games."

    That might have an effect (a very little one, but still, an effect) but is not what he supposedly is talking about as he says "the attach rates are likely to slow" which means that the attach rate will drop. The attach rate will drop (= slow) fastest if Sony drops the price as the number of consoles out there would increase while not every new owner will get it with 5-6 games straight away (no idea what the current attach rate is). If he wants the attach rate to increase, dropping the price of games would be a very good solution. Another one (though not really good) would be raise the price of the PS3 so that nobody gets one anymore. As long as current owners keep buying games, the attach rate will sky-rocket...

  • Eraysor #36 3 years ago

    Do it, just for the sheer hilarity.

  • mingster #37 3 years ago

    hmmm so attach rates are low on the Ps3 yet ther is no piracy at all.
    Does this mean piracy is a non-issue on the 360?

  • Dizzy #38 3 years ago

    "I pitty the people that cant efford the PS3... "

    I pity people who somehow think that they are uber rich if they can afford 300 quid.

  • GamesConnoisseur #39 3 years ago

    Wander: "I reckon this is Activision using hard nose techniques to reduce the PS3 royalty payment before they launch Modern Warfare 2 and DJ Hero. Activision is firmly in the driving seat because Sony requires big games on the PS3. Meaning Activision can bully Sony into reducing the royalty payment."

    +1000

    That what its all about really, why makes such a statement in so a public way? Only if they would profits from Sony's agreeing to reposture their royalty and thus Acti get the best of all the world!

    Acti dropping 22 plus millions Ps3 consoles?

    Not likely but entirely possible if PS3 situation doesnt improve in a year.

  • callum9999 #40 3 years ago

    Farticus: He actually said the attach rate would go down - which is very possible as people who buy less games will be more tempted at a lower price. The number of games sold can rise as the attach rate falls..

  • Vanmunt #41 3 years ago

    all this from a company that think nothing of ripping people off with 'map packs' and back tracking on an 'mmo' style payment for COD..

  • Triggerhappytel #42 3 years ago

    "You show me a multinational that is any other way, and I'll show you a pig in a biplane."

    Well, EA for one, who sacrificed a lot of market share for a better long-term business plan and quality over quantity.

  • cam_guin #43 3 years ago

    @Wander

    Spot on.

  • Vertius #44 3 years ago

    Pure tosh. Not that it'll matter, since Sony will cut the price this Q3.

    You can guff on about getting a "better" console at a cheaper price, but you're only denying yourself of Sony's first-party offerings, or, if you're ignorant, dismissing it altogether. Unless you have a PS3, you're missing half of this generation's stand-out titles, if not more.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #45 3 years ago

    Could we be a little bit realistic here.

    Each system needs to justify the costs to produce a title for it. I'm sure it's not the case for all of their titles but it IS possible that they don't turn a profit on certain PS3 versions.

    I can't realistically see them dropping titles like COD, GH & TH off the PS3 roster as I'm sure the ROI is fine, however expensive new franchises that compete with PS3 exclusives could well be dropped in the future - something like Prototype for example.

    If that happens it will hurt the PS3....UNLESS they reduce the cost to produce titles for the system and/or reduce the cost of the console so they sell more games. Which is EXACTLY what he is angling for when making that statement.

  • zuljin #46 3 years ago

    @Wander
    I think you're making it a little too black and white there. Sony own the James Bond and Spiderman IP, which I'm sure earn Activision a fair bit of dosh too.

  • curtlikesmeat #47 3 years ago

    Three cheers for this, the sooner the better as I can't afford one at the current price point!

  • des #48 3 years ago

    What a disaster PS3 is...Gamecube at least was profitable

  • Freek #49 3 years ago

    He's just trying to force the situation, it's a bitt silly for a multiplatform developer to start saying it doesn't make financial sense to support multipel consoles. Especially considering this entire generation has seen a trend of decreasing console exclusive to spread the cost.

  • Artemus #50 3 years ago

    This is nothing but a bluff to try and force Sony's hand with a price drop.

  • HolyJebus #51 3 years ago

    This is all a bit ridiculous imo.

    Firstly, with the price Acti put on their games/peripherals, they should be the last ones complaining about pricing.

    Secondly, this is a very unprofessional way of going about things.

    and thirdly, I have absolutely no doubt Sony will drop the price towards the end of the year and not because of this dick.

  • carlitoswagon #52 3 years ago

    @Vertius

    "Unless you have a PS3, you're missing half of this generation's stand-out titles, if not more".

    You must be smoking crack....


  • Bigglesworth #53 3 years ago

    And to think this all comes down to Microsoft making shortcuts both in time and money to get the shonky early 360's to market first, and cheaper. When you factor in the huge costs of their warranty mechanisms they're in as deep a hole as Sony, yet they have a much larger userbase and are a more attractive proposition to publishers. In hindsight, an extremely clever, if somewhat cynical, strategy.

  • sanctimoniousqf #54 3 years ago

    Blimey Activision, them's fightin' words....
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 15:44

  • Emth #55 3 years ago

    The PS3 is a bargain, I don't care what anyone says. The problem is the 360 SEEMS cheaper because the price on the box is less. Sadly this is enough to fool many people.

  • Turambar #56 3 years ago

    I think the likelihood of a PS3 price cut is pretty high anyway.

  • coomber #57 3 years ago

    I own both consoles but if I were PS3-only, I would happily tell Activision to carry out their threat...their games are complete shit.

  • miiiguel #58 3 years ago

    I think these are just threats to force the price to go down, however, I don't think PS3-only gamers should start bashing devs for this and that. First Valve, then Atari now Activision, someday some might start syop playing video-games at all because of the PS3 bumpy road.

  • stevetuck #59 3 years ago

    I love all this QQing from people in the industry recently... At least this time its not another article about Peter 'i invented the dog' Molyneux complaining

    Also who buys a PS3 for a FPS? Better players and compitition will be on the 360

  • kangarootoo #60 3 years ago

    @Triggerhappytel

    "Well, EA for one, who sacrificed a lot of market share for a better long-term business plan and quality over quantity."

    Their market share was declining and they were also losing money, so they restructured in the name of protecting future profits and reducing costs (which in turn hit profits obviously). They certainly didn't do it so that you and I could play better games.

  • drumbaby #61 3 years ago

    "I think you're making it a little too black and white there. Sony own the James Bond and Spiderman IP, which I'm sure earn Activision a fair bit of dosh too. "

    Exactly...I think that Sony would have no option but to respond by playing this kind of hard ball, because such a loss would hit them as hard as losing Bond/ Spidey/ certain songs would hit Activision.

  • laudy #62 3 years ago

    Bigglesworth

    +1

  • E_Goldstein #63 3 years ago

    Having the heavy weights chime in on this should certainly worry Sony. Frankly the PS3 catalogue is still very poor, there are some great games expected later this year and next, but frankly momentum seems to be slowing from a consumer perspective. Furthermore with many "exclusives" shifting to the 360 as timed releases I'm not seeing much in the way of incentive to keep my PS3 going.

    Maybe I'm just getting old but BBC Iplayer is getting more airtime on my PS3 than games are....

  • Brianstorm #64 3 years ago

    The CEO of activision seems like a top bloke:

    1. He bins the brutal legends game and it's developers following the Vivendi merger because they cannot make it an annual franchise, fortunately for them EA like them and want to publish their game. Now Activision is sueing them to stop the game being published even though they sacked the developer. Great PR work there Activision.

    2. Harmonix are willing to let their instruments work on the inferior Guitar Hero published by Activision, but Activision say that they will not allow guitar hero instruments to be compatible with the better Rock Band, even though this is technically a very simple exercise. Good work again activision.

    3. Slags off the premium console on the market, even though the previous iteration of the console was responsible for growing activision into the biggest publisher in the world.

    Sounds like the sort of bloke you would really want to be mates with....

  • Super_Zee #65 3 years ago

    Never, ever going to happen.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #66 3 years ago

    Wtf is going on here with loads of you saying its unbelievable for a 3rd party to drop support for a console?

    Since the dawn of time the top console or the top two consoles have had major support and the third place systems generally lose it.

    Now, because it's your* fucking beloved Sony console you're saying it won't happen, it's never happened or it's fucking out of order if it does happen??

    As I said above, I don't think it will be that bad in the case, but please get your heads out of the sand and realise that whether it deserved it or not, the PS3 isnt 'winning' this gen and if the past has told us anything that means the possibility of losing 3rd party software!


    * Addressed purely at the fanboys.

  • Grayvern #67 3 years ago

    The price differance is nothing to write home about 2 and a half games difference. Although im probably not that average given that I have 15 PS3 games and 20 xbox 360 games.

    Also the PS3 doesn't have to win it only has to turn a profit its business not war. The console in the lead simply makes more profit.

    As long as sony and microsoft turn enough profit to justify producing their next consoles and keep competition alive then im fine.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 16:18

  • maximusfarticus #68 3 years ago

    @E_Shitstain

    What the fuck are you talking about? The PS3 is gathering momentum gameswise just as the shitbox is grinding to a halt. I mean, seriously, what are you retarded ms fans looking forward to this year eh? Exactly. And if activision wanna stop making games for the PS3, then it'll hurt them more than Sony.

  • Les #69 3 years ago

    @ donnie080208

    Your posts are great fun! Keep up the good work! :)

  • maximusfarticus #70 3 years ago

    @Trebell

    Coming games? Funny you can't name any isn't it you ridiculous fucking muppet. Awwww, have you got me on ignore now so my words don't hurt your delicate likkle eyes? Pathetic cunt.

  • GreyBeard #71 3 years ago

    I'm very suprised Activision are so arrogant to think they can threaten a platform holder with over 200million hardware units out in the wild. Especially one who have already got one hardware refresh announced plus another strongly rumoured.

    Thinking about it though, it really is an empty threat. A PS3 price reduction is a fait-accompli, the only question is when its going to happen. Stopping supporting the PS3 would cut their HD install base demographic by at least a third, which is quite a chunk of revenue (as evidenced by the $500m in royalties they paid last year) and as 360 and PS3 titles share a lot of code and assets it wouldn't save them that much in the way of upfront costs.

    I bet EA are rubbing their hands with glee over this. If Activision pull out of the PS3 market it leaves EA's key franchises unopposed.

  • maximusfarticus #72 3 years ago

    @donnie080208

    Hello Farti you pathetic cumstain.

  • MrFlump #73 3 years ago

    I do believe that this has always been the biggest problem with the PS3 in the attach rate of games.

    I've got both consoles and while I enjoy playing some things on the PS3, whenever a game comes out it seems to me that the xbox360 version is usually superior (either in terms of graphic quality, framerate or (in the case of ghostbusters) basic stuff like flickering walls that are evident on the PS3). With the exception of LBP and Uncharted, most of my PS3 games are those from the PSN store. Ratchet and Clank is probably one of the only games on the PS3 I was compelled to go out and buy.

    The developers themselves have a lot to answer for as well as Sony though. The PS3 is technically more powerful than anything out there just now, but the costs of developing and harnessing that power are significant which is why I'm sure we get so many lazy conversions from 360 games on to the PS3 which tend to be flawed. I know quite a lot of people who have both systems and I know from my own experience that people won't buy games for the PS3 that are inferior than the same available on a much cheaper console. With a higher attach rate on the 360, its not surprising that developers are focusing on that first and then porting to the PS3. Until Sony can do something to tip the balance back in their favour, i think the points Activision are making about royalty payments are going to become more and more common.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #74 3 years ago

    @maximusfarticus,

    Don't you cunts ever get bored spouting the same shit over and over?

    Next year blah blah blah

    Sales at this point in its life blah blah blah

    Great value with blu ray blah blah blah

    Look at the great games coming up blah blah blah

    M$ RROD LOL blah blah blah

    Just fucking grow up or fuck off eh?

  • laudy #75 3 years ago

    donnie(and some numbers)

    are you blind to the fact that he's quite capable of holding his own against this torrent of "abuse"? For gooness sake, stop acting like his mum.

    here's the thing, everyone is entitled to their opinion, some try to pass their opinion off as fact, others leave fellow posters to form their own opinion. Some flamebait (new word for my vocab!), others bite.

    I really don't have a problem with farticus (well, except when he called me a w*nker, but I was being facetious :)) it just all adds to a lively debate.

    This isn't a Court of Law and you're not farticus' brief, so stop counting the incidents of abuse against him.

    Many Thanks

  • callum9999 #76 3 years ago

    What a huge waste of money. It beggars belief that people would go out and buy a PS3 when they have an Xbox that they are already happy with and prefer, therefore resulting in the PS3 rarely being used...

  • Grayvern #77 3 years ago

    The CEO's comment itself says less about the position of the major companies in the games industry and more about industry corporates who parade themselves like last years big brother contestants.

    Personally PS3 and 360 are about equal to me, the only differance being that Sony rewarded me for being an early adopter while Microsoft punished me. (But I don't begrudge them, I plan on buying an elite at some point, and ever since I've gotten into photography its put the prices of consoles into stark perspective)

    Also I play my PS3 about as much as I play my 360 and prefer neither. (The only console I rarely use is the Wii)


    Edited by 2 at 19/06/09 @ 16:30

  • Les #78 3 years ago

    "but please get your heads out of the sand and realise that whether it deserved it or not, the PS3 isnt 'winning' this gen and if the past has told us anything that means the possibility of losing 3rd party software!"

    You are right that PS3 isn't winning this gen. But the situation is a bit different this time with 2 HD platforms on the losing side and one totally different platform winning. Not supporting PS3 would cut the market for their HD titles by 40+ percent. Not really a smart move unless the additional costs of porting to PS3 are bigger than the additional revenues.

  • maximusfarticus #79 3 years ago

    @Spacemidget

    No more than you get bored of spouting the same old shit you dumb motherfucker:

    "I know it keeps breaking down, but Microsoft are really quick at sending me a refurb"

    "The fan noise doesn't bother me at all, I'm deaf as well as stupid"

    "I don't care there are literally no big games coming this year, but as least we have our own version of Miis to play with"

    "Peter Molyneux's next project really will be as good as he promises, honest"

    Sad really.

  • Grayvern #80 3 years ago

    Les has a good point.

  • laudy #81 3 years ago

    maximus,

    you can't fall for nonsense like that...the reaction is clearly what he wants!

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #82 3 years ago

    How about you show me anywhere where I've said those things?

    Fucking pwnt.

  • maximusfarticus #83 3 years ago

    @Laudy

    You're right, I shouldn't feed obvious know-nothing trolls like trousermidget but I'm naturally a decent person and can't help but try to educate when I come across ignorance.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #84 3 years ago

    You're right, I shouldn't feed obvious know-nothing trolls like trousermidget but I'm naturally a decent person and can't help but try to educate when I come across ignorance.

    THAT is THE funniest thing I've read in weeks. Brilliant.

  • cianchristopher #85 3 years ago

    @maximusfarticus

    Why do you keep going on about "no Xbox 360 games to look forward to this year"?
    Personally I'm looking forward to Halo 3:oDST, Forza 3, Blur, Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed 2. There's probably more out there as well.

    What are the PS3 games that are looking good this year? I can only think of Uncharted 2 (and the last 3 I mentioned above - but seeing as they're multiplatform I think we can safely assume that they'll be better on the Xbox 360).

    BTW, don't mention God of War 3, Heavy Rain or GT5 as games you're looking forward to. I mean this year as in 2009.

  • maximusfarticus #86 3 years ago

    Anyway, I too must take my leave. Unlike all the xbox owners on here, I have some decent games that need playing.

    To all the PS3 owners here, happy trails to you, until we meet again. To the Xbox owners, piss off.

  • Negotiator #87 3 years ago

    I say Sony need to bite the bullit and reduce the price, MW2 is the biggest game of the year and Sony need it, oh how they need it. Sony are now in big trouble, losing shits loads of money every month, and if they lose the support of 3rd parties they are finished.

  • carlitoswagon #88 3 years ago

    @maximusfarticus

    Have you heard of the multi award winning Left 4 Dead and its sequel L4D2? Its really very good.

    Really, Bobby has just slapped PS3 fans in the face, kicked them in the nuts and finished them off with a chinese burn.......to the bell end.



  • El-Dev #89 3 years ago

    If Activision can turn their back on over 22m potential customers then fair play to them. But, they are crying about poor attatch rates on Guitar Hero games. How you can buy more than one of them I do not know. I bought GH3, completed it on easy then left it lying for months and traded it in, which was the best bit of trade in business I ever did.

    Can't see them dropping the PS3. Also after these comments can't see this guy keepin his job a lot longer. Isn't there a free post at MS after someone left for EA? Hmmmm.....
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 19:46

  • des #90 3 years ago

    Wtf is going on here with loads of you saying its unbelievable for a 3rd party to drop support for a console?"

    They are just going through these stages,although a little bit too early

    Stage1:Denial-no no its not happening
    Stage 2:anger-just wait it will hurt Activision more...just wait
    Stage3:bargaining-we have Bond,Spidey,etc...
    Stage 4:Depression
    Stage 5:acceptance

    Third parties always abandon last place consoles at some point,why?Because they are making games to earn money,not to lose it...that is the bottom line,there is no love in gaming world,it is like any other business-money talks
    There are different levels of "abandon" though...

    The fact that one of the biggest third parties is stating that publicly tells you in what kind of a mess has Sony got themselves into...this would be unimaginable in 2005...

  • Garulon #91 3 years ago

    "The developers themselves have a lot to answer for as well as Sony though. The PS3 is technically more powerful than anything out there just now"

    @MRFlump, for gaming, it's not. It's pretty good, but the 360 very very narrowly beats it. How many more faceoffs will it take before this gets hammered home?

  • GreyBeard #92 3 years ago

    Big trouble? Hardly.

    Last month MS shifted 44k more units in the US according to NPD. That's not all that impressive considering the price disparity between the two platforms!

    Its not a popular thing to point out, but MS sales performance isn't really all that. 15.2mil lifetime (42 months) in the US market is hardly stunning. Especially as its far and away the cheapest of the current gen machines.

  • mega7ech #93 3 years ago

    Just drop the frickin price already Sony and all this "heated debate" crap will end. You'll sell more consoles and games and everyone will be happy :)

    Except Wii owners who'll then also start demanding a price drop.....

  • MeBrains #94 3 years ago

    what a load of bull. take up of PS3 has been quicker than take up of 360 when you align their launch dates.

  • Razzajazz #95 3 years ago

    See, there's lots of people on here talking about console sales and whatnot, but the actual focus should be on attach rates. Either PS3 users do not buy as many third-party games, or if users have both systems, they're picking the 360 version. It's all well and good shouting about Sony's first and second party games, but the third-party publishers don't give a shit about that. And furthermore, Sony's problem, unlike Nintendo, is that it costs an absolute bomb to develop for PS3 compared to the Wii. Add this all together, and you can see why ActiBlizz might say something like this. Personally though, like most people, I just think it's Kotick throwing his toys out the pram to get what he wants....

  • chessboxer #96 3 years ago

    Does anyone know how the worldwide monthly sales are doing between the PS3 and 360 (just out of curiosity)?

  • Goodfella #97 3 years ago

    F*cking hell, donnie080208 are you farticus's twin?

    You spout as much bollocks as he does.

  • TopKatt #98 3 years ago

    @Donnie

    Who is this Noboby and what did he think the PS3 would be?

  • Triggerhappytel #99 3 years ago

    "F*cking hell, donnie080208 are you farticus's twin?

    You spout as much bollocks as he does."

    It's the same person. C'mon, no-one else would say they "admire" Farticus' posts!

  • mega7ech #100 3 years ago

    "i was just saying how much i enjoy and admire his posts"

    try going outside sometimes dude!

  • Les #101 3 years ago

    "Les missed the point"

    I seriously doubt it (as I'm rather intelligent - both a blessing and a curse as you have to deal with relatively more idiots). But please elaborate.

    "if you would have told analysts 3years ago we would be having these debates and comments of a ceo of the worlds biggest publisher they would have been dumbfounded.NOBOBY thought the ps3 would be anything other than a massive triump."

    True. That's because what analysts do is take the past and extrapolate that to the future. As the past didn't have a Wii they were completely off the mark.

  • laudy #102 3 years ago

    "I must comment on the abuse FACTIMUS MAXIMUS gets for pointing out the blatant mess sony is in this gen.i have been reading his comments the last few weeks and he is a beacon of truth in these comments section.keep up the good work with your witty and articulate comments factimus"

    I was referring to this part of your post.the rest is just waffle (in my opinion). Comments like "beacon of truth" place you firmly in the sycophantic my friend. Neither you nor the object of your affection (proved by your insistence on the misspell) work for Microsoft or Sony and so I cannot accept what you say on here as anything other than opinion.

    can you possibly resist the urge to have a dig at sony in one of your posts? not even faRticus has a swipe every time he contributes. that's f-a-R-t-i-c-u-s.

    cheers

  • laudy #103 3 years ago

    can you possibly resist the urge to have a dig at sony in one of your posts?

    the answer is a very clear, very definite: no

  • Les #104 3 years ago

    "It's the same person. C'mon, no-one else would say they "admire" Farticus' posts!"

    Based on the first post I assumed satire. It's quite hard to imagine such a post to be 'real'... ;)

  • MeBrains #105 3 years ago

    btw: about sales - which this is about. ww pick-up of consoles has been higher for ps3 - see above. also do not forget that ps2 still sells around as much (actually about 20-30% less) as the "current-gen" consoles.

    a large part supposedly are consumers which still are on the fence towards "current-gen"?!

    edit: spolleeng
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 17:41

  • Gl3n #106 3 years ago

    PS3lol.

  • Gl3n #107 3 years ago

    tbh, i have to question your games competetance for buying a PS3 alone. It never was a good deal, unless you wanted a Blu-Ray player. Which is in itself questionable in this age of downloads and mediocre uptake.

    This time next year, maybe it'll be the beginning of the end.

  • Farstarbuck #108 3 years ago

    @les
    This is complete and utter bullshit so I guess he was misquoted. The other option is that the guy is an idiot. Given his function that's not completely unrealistic...

    For those that don't get it: The number of games each console owner buys isn't dependent on the price of the console. A price drop won't make me as someone that already owns the console all of a sudden buy more games. So the attach rate has nothing to do with this. It would even drop if the price of the console was reduced as more people that buy relatively few games would get one (the non-hardcore).

    So a big wig at Activision comments on his business and the future and just so I'm right you reckon you have a better understanding of his business?

    Or do you work for Activision on their floor sign posted Arsehole Land?
    Where free speaking lunatics were invited to comment at Activision headquarters for the day and really it was all part of an elaborate plan to lock you all up and throw away the key?

  • El-Dev #109 3 years ago

    "Is it so offensive to say you agree and admire a poster on here?"

    No, but admiring on a poster on a video game site is somewhat odd, maybe you could use your admiration somewhere more appropriate?

  • penhalion #110 3 years ago

    Given dev costs on the Sony platform, it may be more practical for some companies to simply not develope certain games for it.

    I hope this doesn't go the way of the Dreamcast!

  • Les #111 3 years ago

    "So a big wig at Activision comments on his business and the future and just so I'm right you reckon you have a better understanding of his business?"

    No.

    "Or do you work for Activision on their floor sign posted Arsehole Land?"

    No.

    "Where free speaking lunatics were invited to comment at Activision headquarters for the day and really it was all part of an elaborate plan to lock you all up and throw away the key?"

    And no.

  • El-Dev #112 3 years ago

    I understand where you are coming from donnie.

  • GamerG #113 3 years ago

    Ouch, as COD is easily the biggest franchise/seller on PS3 so far all the industry must be losing tonnes of money on PS3

    Sony need to lower their royalities to keep support, $500m on Royalties on profits of $125 = $375m loss!

    I guess publishers do not mind losing money initially to support a platform but thats only if they see future profits.

  • el_pollo_diablo #114 3 years ago

    I suspect the big sellers such as Call of Duty and Guitar Hero have perfectly safe futures on the PS3.

    Bobby Kotick can shove the rest of Activisions high quality output, like 'Kung Fu Panda Kart Racing Shrek Party', up his fat arse for all I care.

  • IneptPercy #115 3 years ago

    Dare I say the 360's price may have an affect too, how many PS3 only owners is there who would go out and buy a cheap 360 just to play call of duty if they had too? Cuttings sales on the PS3 would increase sales on the 360.

    So no sales on PS3 + more sales on the 360 - Sony fees = a lot more profit

    As for people who have this strange belief that us none PS3 owners can't afford them, its more a case of not wasting the money on one, I could go and buy one right now if I wanted but why would I do a thing like that?

  • Eyhren #116 3 years ago

    Go die in a hole you stupid fuckfaced cunt.

  • Rodchenko #117 3 years ago

    i also like calgon posts

    Oh, what a surprise.

  • Grogmonkey #118 3 years ago

    "Sony need to lower their royalities to keep support, $500m on Royalties on profits of $125 = $375m loss!"

    Don't think that's right. Royalties are what is paid out of the RRP of a game to the console manufacturer, profits are what the publishers have left after costs. Costs include royalties.

    It's interesting that Kotick seems keen to lose a significant amount of money from PS3 sales. I tend to keep track of the Chart-Track numbers each week, and most of the time the format spilt is around 55/60%-40/45% 360-PS3 (for games on the 360, PS3 and Wii, it's often closer to 50-30-20). Now, either Kotick assumes that all those people that own a PS3 also own a 360, and therefore the loss on PS3 sales will be picked up by an increase in 360 sales, or he hates money.

    Personally, I own 3 multiplatform games on the PS3 compared to about 50 or 60 on the 360. I usually buy the 360 'cause most of my friends own 360s and it makes playing multiplayer easier. Also, the 360 is out first and had gamerpoints and, although they are completely pointless, all things being equal you may as well get them than not. As a final point, all things are NOT equal as the frequent Head to Heads on this very site prove. So, and this is an assumption on my part, I am willing to bet most owners of multiple platforms are already buying the 360 version. Which puts a nail in the 'PS3 to 360 sales conversion' point above.

    So Kotick is happy to lose, at a low average estimate, 20% of all sales of his software? With no guarantee of return? Doesn't sound very likely. Especially if you consider that if you're making a game for the 360 the extra cost in porting to the PS3 isn't that amazingly great. At least, it's not in my experience. Extra dev kits, licensing, some programmers to do the PS3-specific coding, and some extra testing time don't really add up to the potential loss of thousands of sales in my book.

    But a lot of this is speculation (based on common sense, the sales numbers, and my experience of multiformat development, something Activision should be incredibly good at...). And at the end of day everyone KNOWS that Sony is going to drop the price this 'Holiday Season'. Perhaps it should have been last year, but it doesn't seem like the first part of the year has been especially bad for them, so maybe not. It definitely will be this year, though.

    Kotick probably knows it, too, which makes me wonder why he said anything at all. Just to make extra doubly sure (pissing off a bunch of people in the process)? Odd strategy.

  • makeamazing #119 3 years ago

    Its a pretty stupid statement... I mean as others have said, its seems either a misquote or the guy is trying to reduce his payments.

    First things first, software companies have to pay MS as well, so its not like this is a Sony thing. Perhaps Activision are paying more than MS and want a discount.. I wouldnt be surprised by that.

    Isnt it also the case that you only pay for the number of CDs your print (royalty per copy/disk).. so either they are printing too many and not selling them? Or there is something else? Perhaps someone needs to do better stock control

    Secondly, I can understand saying Xbox games are selling better, but Wii games? Unless that equates to we are making lots of shovelware that cost hardly anything to make and it sells enough copies to make a profit. Except for a few games, I dont recall many non Nintendo games doing that well in the charts (there are a few, but many/most do not appear).

    The price cut is coming, we all know it, and we all know its coming with the Slim towards the end of the year. So saying 2010-2011 is when they will see if they continue to support it unless there is a price drop...seems alittle off.. .dont you think?

    All very strange indeed.

  • Goodfella #120 3 years ago

    Ineptpercy said: As for people who have this strange belief that us none PS3 owners can't afford them, its more a case of not wasting the money on one, I could go and buy one right now if I wanted but why would I do a thing like that?

    *Newsflash* The World doesn't revolve around you.

    Get this, stay with me as it'll totally blow your mind. Different people have different tastes. I have a 360 and PS3 (and Wii, for my shame) and amazingly I prefer all the first and second party games the PS3 offers and will have to come. Crazy I know but it's what I like.

  • GamerG #121 3 years ago

    "its a pretty stupid statement"

    Jesus Christ how ironic!!!

    The guy has all the EXACT facts and figurers to hand, no amount of armchair analysts working out figures based on things plucked out of their heads or estimates based on top 10 lists is gonna change the fact that THE MAN IN THE KNOW, is saying they are losing tonnes of money on PS3 games right now and to have any credibility at all you can not try and prove him wrong by compiling bts of info from hearsay and conjecture when all of us on hear no nothing compared to this guy.

  • Goodfella #122 3 years ago

    @donnie

    The only thing that's clear is your desire to see Sony fail, it seems, much Like Farticus does.

    It would be a sad day if they were ever pushed out and MS were left to run rampant.

    Oh how quickly people forget the huge amount of superb and varied games Sony delivered on their various platforms since 1995. You fickle wankers.

  • captain_desperado #123 3 years ago

    If I was Sony I would take this threat seriously.. If Activision were making money off of their PS3 titles what would possibly be in it for them by making a statement like this? Their bottom line obviously shows that at the current market share the money they have to invest to make PS3 titles doesn't give them a healthy enough return. I think you guys read far to much into it, this appears to me to be no more than basic business - they can't make a healthy profit on PS3 games so want sony to grow their market or they will be forced to drop support.

  • Les #124 3 years ago

    "Kotick probably knows it, too, which makes me wonder why he said anything at all."

    Because he wants them to drop the price sooner rahter than later.

    Despite posting record year after record year in revenues, the video game business is actually very bad at making real money. They can't really keep the costs under control. So what they need, when costs increase, is more consoles out there so that more games are sold. Wii is doing fine, 360 and PS3 aren't (360 looks good because PS3 looks so bad basically), especially not when you take into account that they require completely different software compared to the leading platform, at higher development cost. Couple that with the ongoing inability of a typical publisher to actually generate substantial sales on the leading platform and the business outlook isn't that great.

    How to fix it? A) Stop just doing what you've always done and adapt your development and marketing of Wii titles to the people that actually own a Wii; B) Pray that somehow all of a sudden people start to buy the HD consoles in droves so that you can just continue with business as usual and reap reasonable profits and get your big, fat bonus.

    B) isn't realistic but it requires the least effort from the side of the publisher so that is what they'll do. With 360 at a rock bottom price, there's not much to be hoped from that platform so naturally attention is focused on the rather pricey PS3. So pressure is put on Sony to take the loss so that they don't have to. Sony losing billions doesn't affect their bonus after all.

    I personally don't expect a PS3 price drop to have the impact that 3rd party publishers pray for. Making it more affordable won't all of a sudden make it hot.

  • Xensor #125 3 years ago

    @Grogmonkey

    Thank you for a level-headed post! Seems to be a lot of angst in this thread :p

    From my perspective, coming as a PS3 and PC owner, Kotick is right in that the PS3 really needs a price cut to stimulate sales, especially in the current financial climate. Both the 360 and the Wii are cheaper, the 360 has the better cross-platform versions (ignoring the PC ofc) and the Wii is currently raping the family market for every penny they have.

    But Kotick is a fool if he thinks people who own just a PS3 will buy a 360 just to play Activision games. There's no way in hell i'm gonna fork out for another console when i've got more important things to worry about. And he talk about attach rates is utter rubbish. I have bought 12 boxed games in the year i've had my PS3 and about another 8 psn games. None of them we're made by Activison. Perhaps he should worry about the dross his company is turning out rather than blow smoke about the platform holders.

    Personally i think Sony will only come third in this generation, but will have a large enough install base to make dropping production for the PS3 a bad call in the long run. There are some seriously good exclusive games on the horizon which will shift boxes, of that i have absolutely no doubt. But Sony need to realise they have shot themselves in both feet quite a lot of times this generation and as a Playstation fan since its inception i can't help but wonder if they had shown a bit more humility and a bit better marketing and financial accumen, just how much of a success the PS3 could have been.

    And on a slightly unrelated point, anyone who think digital distribution will be the sole source of game availability in the next 10 years is deluding themselves. Disc media will be the main source of game sales well into the next generation of hardware simply because of the size of game files - these days having a triple A title coming in less than 10 GB is probably quite unusual. streaming that data to tens of thousands of people every day would be hugely costly especially in bandwith terms, plus all the associated risks of large file downloads, plus the storage space the end user would require. I'm not doubting that it will happen eventually, but there has to be vast investment in global infrastructure first (i.e. fibre to your doorstep) for it to be commercially viable.

    All imho natch, debunk as you see fit :)

  • El-Dev #126 3 years ago

    Also considering stopping developing for the PSP. The PSP has an install base of 50m. Slightly less than the combined sales of 360 + PS3.

    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 19:48

  • Redeye #127 3 years ago

    On the one hand, Kotick's continuing stream of utter bollocks really makes me want to repeatedly hit him in the face with a bus. On the other hand, erm...

    Of course it's a move designed to put the frighteners on SCE, and as a result I sincerely hope that Sony flip Activision the finger and tell them to do one. Won't happen either way, not with an increasing userbase that provides both companies with substantial revenue, but as many have already pointed out, Kotick is just trying to play hardball with the percentages they have to shell out.

    Also, fanboys. Your pointless, meaningless bleating makes me wish that you'd all die in a fire and do the gene pool a favour.

  • pickles4uk #128 3 years ago

    This is ridiculous, the only reason he's saying this is because if people buy a playstation 3 they won't have enough money to buy one of their games with some ridiculous expensive peripheral. Maybe if they focused on decent games (COD MW aside) without expensive add ons there wouldn't be a problem

  • IneptPercy #129 3 years ago

    "Get this, stay with me as it'll totally blow your mind. Different people have different tastes. I have a 360 and PS3 (and Wii, for my shame) and amazingly I prefer all the first and second party games the PS3 offers and will have to come. Crazy I know but it's what I like. "

    Thats your problem not mine, I personally own Wii, 360 and PC. The Wii is good for the occasional good game and keeping the other half happy, the 360 is still around as I would rather keep it than sell it for next to nothing. The PC is the reason the 360 has little use now and the PS3 is completely redundant due to the PC.

    As my point originally was saying the price isn't the issue of the PS3, its the price compared to how many good exclusives there is, right now there is 3 games I wish to play, so if I get them at £20 then thats £120 per game which doesn't represent good value to me.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 20:08

  • zuljin #130 3 years ago

    @grogmonkey
    "I usually buy the 360 'cause most of my friends own 360s and it makes playing multiplayer easier."

    "I am willing to bet most owners of multiple platforms are already buying the 360 version."

    I agree with your first point, if you have both systems, just buy whichever you have more friends with. But personally I buy *most* multiplatform on PS3 for that very reason.

    (Caveat - No doubt I could easily fill up an entire friends list on either system, but I prefer playing with people I know predominantly in real life. Just the way the cookie crumbles in my case).

  • Goodfella #131 3 years ago

    Hmm, in my haste I forgot to mention my PC gaming rig (consisting of a ATi 4870, 8gb RAM, Quad core CPU blah blah), for which I prefer using to play most FPS games including the excellent Left 4 Dead.

    Frankly, your argument that the PS3 is redundant because of your PC is hilarious. It's the 360 that whores it's games out to the PC, not the PS3. Just another reason for me to buy less games for the 360.

  • Les #132 3 years ago

    "Oh how quickly people forget the huge amount of superb and varied games Sony delivered on their various platforms since 1995. You fickle wankers."

    You're asuming that those same people were actually born a while before 1995... ;)

  • Goodfella #133 3 years ago

    I didn't assume, I neglected to realise the point. ;)

    Point is, even looking at just the PS2 there's no doubting that single platform has huge amount of great games for all tastes.

  • captain_desperado #134 3 years ago

    "Point is, even looking at just the PS2 there's no doubting that single platform has huge amount of great games for all tastes. "

    Of course that is unquestionably true but what relevance does it have to Activisions profit forecasting?

  • Goodfella #135 3 years ago

    Ever heard of digression?

  • miiiguel #136 3 years ago

    I never understood why ppl tend to use their (older; cronological) age as badge, and something they like to collect and show others they have... a lot, the more the marrier, and shit.

    I would like to be born tomorrow.

    Oh how quickly people forget the huge amount of superb and varied games Sony delivered on their various platforms since 1995. You fickle wankers.
    Social services? Not with my pay check.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 20:46

  • Goodfella #137 3 years ago

    miiiguel, stick to your native tongue as your attempts at jibes in English are totally lost in translation.

  • miiiguel #138 3 years ago

    @ good(youmustbejoking)fella: Yeah I know, I'll keep on trying though, this urge to learn, up until now, brought me only good stuff. A xenophobe now and then spawns, but that comes with the territory.
    Edited by 2 at 19/06/09 @ 20:53

  • Goodfella #139 3 years ago

    Do you know the meaning of the word xenophobe?

    Only the internet can spawn irrational behaviour. *sigh*

  • miiiguel #140 3 years ago

    @ good(you'rekillingmenow)fella: yes, xenophobe is easy..., it's scarily close to the one used in my "native" language. But thanks anyway, maybe you can help me someday with conditionals.

  • Goodfella #141 3 years ago

    Ah, you're still clueless I see. You really shouldn't try to confuse things with this language barrier. My use of the word native isn't racist or xenophobic. Look it up, it's what 'we' call colloquial.

  • miiiguel #142 3 years ago

    I don't belive we're from diferent races, unfortunatly, though, when someone says I shouldn't try to comunicate with other individuals and "stick to my native tongue" I might not find it coloquial, and hence mistaken it for "xenophobia". But then again, I can be wrong, and might as well be, after all, a "goodfella". Let's hope it's just a brand thing and stuff.

  • Goodfella #143 3 years ago

    I just want to know what you meant by "Social services? Not with my pay check."?

  • MeBrains #144 3 years ago

    good to have read some more informed posts on the last page. thanks.

    who has a clue as to why miiiguel and goodfellow are not taking their argument up through pm?

  • miiiguel #145 3 years ago

    oh that... and I thought it was the "born tomorrow" shit. Language barrier, indeed (and, ufff..., it is a brand thing, that left me happier, no bullshit now, believe me!).

    So, let me try another analogy: Don't ask me to pay for some service a multinational did in the past, I mean, I'm all for the social state, European way and all, I pay for my parents (read: "previous generation";) retirement. Do the same for corporations? No way.

    Oh well, maybe I'm indeed tired and talking too much bullshit, and it's reaching a considerable level of schizophrenia (is taking me home), written in a non "native" language.

    I'm going home.

  • m0thr4 #146 3 years ago

    wft is he talking about? ^ ^ ^

  • kopykatt #147 3 years ago

    This is pure gaming politics. Why go public with something like this? Activision have become one of the most disliked names in gaming in less then 18 months with their focus on sequels and pricey extras plus canning various original titles and this is just their way of saying 'were in charge Sony, do as your told'. Very similiar attitude to EA a few years ago.

    Yes, I do agree a lower price would help put more consoles in more homes meaning more potential sales but for the worlds largest publisher to ignore the millions of PS3 owners makes no financial sense.

    And yes I know I cant spell.

  • IneptPercy #148 3 years ago

    "Frankly, your argument that the PS3 is redundant because of your PC is hilarious."

    I don't see why that is so funny, as it is my pc is quite similar but a OC'ed dual core and 4GB ram, so surely you see the same as me. Multi format is best on PC (specs allowing) which covers most games these days. In my case its plugged into the same TV and sound system as everything else, it plays blu-ray (and HD-DVD) is a truly amazing media player.

    So to say the PS3 is redundant due to my PC is a very fair comment, yes it won't play the PS3 exclusive games, to me that means I am missing 3 games (personal opinion) so £300 to play 3 games is rather poor. Likewise the PS3 won't play PC Exclusives so I am quite happy playing warhead instead of killzone 2.

  • Gl3n #149 3 years ago

    Can i ask you, what is the point in someone going out and investing in a PS3 over a 360? When the average punter doesn't even have access to a HD screen, let alone the inclination to buy Blu Ray discs.

    For half the price, you could have an Xbox 360 and spend the rest on a fuckton of AAA pre-owned games.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 23:43

  • FooAtari #150 3 years ago

    @Goodfella
    Frankly, your argument that the PS3 is redundant because of your PC is hilarious. It's the 360 that whores it's games out to the PC, not the PS3. Just another reason for me to buy less games for the 360.

    My PS3 is redundant because of the PC. Although that's nothing do with buying multiplatorm games and more to do with there isnt much on the PS3 that interests me, and there is plenty on the PC. I simply prefer it as a games platform. PS3 makes a great media center though for streaming stuff to my TV from the PC

    The second statement is worst peice of 'console argument' I have ever seen. Neither console "whores" or rather ports their games to the PC. The developers do...

  • Moz #151 3 years ago

    I really don't think he ment to say attach rate as that makes no sence! As it has no baring on the number of consoles sold.

    You could sell 1 million and have an attach rate of 10, so 10 million software units sold

    Or have sold 5 million but only have an attach rate of 1.

    Devs just need as big a potential audience as possible which they would get by PS3 dropping price, as despite the 360 being cheap there are still a fair number of people sticking with sony and making do with PS2 until they can afford a PS3.

    Also surely by now porting costs between 360 and PS3 must be quite low now so surely not supporting PS3 would just reduce their sales, which when games like Call of duty are selling in excess of 4 million on each console that's a lot of sales to loose. Especially when there are plenty of games being produced to a similar budget that are seen as succesful for have sold just a million copies in total!

    But more importantly there's a fair amount of evidence to support a PS3 price before the end year any so I don't see the point in making such a public statement that could damage their relationship with Sony.

  • Squaregod #152 3 years ago

    I stopped cheer for sony after they released PS3, i just could'nt get the price even with all things that go with the bundle but i don't need them...why ? because if console keeps being stuffed with players, inet, wi fi and such crap then its already not a console its another computer =/ Sony however more than big asshole in this case, pushing out a BD was good thing about size of the disk doubles or tripples but it costs so fucking much for an ordinary teens that buying it becomes a problem. I don't know how about other europe countries but in mine PS3 60Gb costs x2 price of its originals, pretty cool huh ? No comment about the games as well which cost 1/4 of usual work payment. I know its just this country's prob but being a fat jerk as they and giving to kids a most expensive present of all consoles + even more expensive games for them is so cheap. money is all they ever wanted
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 00:42

  • malmer #153 3 years ago

    It is understandable even if they still make a profit on the PS3 version.

    If the cost of making a ps3 version of a game is large enough to make it a better investment (in terms of returns) to make a whole new 360 game/360 dlc then why would you make a PS3 version instead of using that money to create something for the 360 with better returns per invested £.

    Ask the stockholders...

  • Squaregod #154 3 years ago

    When PS3 drops in a price will be after they release PS4 its so predictable. Nothing was holding Sony from making a Dual Layer DVD as default format for their games. Just look how Xbox360 handling it right way, and there is nothing bad about making even 2 disks game or even 4! Remember Final Fantasy VII or VIII i even didnt care about amount of disks, sony just bitching out of own lard

  • Triggerhappytel #155 3 years ago

    donnie - "I admire his posts and his syntax whats odd about that?"

    Might as well just sling an intelligent word in there to subtly convince everyone how clever you are. S'alright; close the thesaurus - no-one noticed.

  • peteb #156 3 years ago

    Everyone knows the biggest mistake Sony made was the price of the PS3 (or rather, shoehorning Bu-ray in and having a shitty architecture). But Sony has learned a lot in the last few years.

    Then they release the PSP Go for 250 quid.

  • Law07 #157 3 years ago

    Maximusfarticus and farticusmaximus FIGHT

  • GreyBeard #158 3 years ago

    I think you guys are all missing the most important point:

    The guy making this threat is the same person who shitcanned a load of good and exciting projects last year because they weren't suited to be exploited with yearly version updates.

    The same guy who's now trying to prevent Brutal Legend from seeing the light of day.

    For these and many other reasons, fuck Activision.

  • Teamallstar #159 3 years ago

    I think that we can wrap this up by say that the PS3 is dead in the water. Sony cannot afford to keep losing the money that they are at the moment. The reason that they haven't dropped the price is because they can't afford to.

    They failed with the online aspect when that was the great new thing, they failed with the motion controller, they have failed with the games and the third party developer relationships!

    Someone said earlier that they felt sorry for people who can't afford the PS3... I have a PS3 and I'm feeling pretty bad for spending the money on something that is so bad.

    I don't blame activision for bailing on a failing platform. How long before the others follow?

  • smoothn00dle #160 3 years ago

    Sony should stick up the fist and extend it middle finger to Acti.. Who the F$$$ is ACti to tell others what to do? If they don't like, go to develop games 4 PC or something.. Like I care..

    Acti sold 10 million copies of Modern Warfare 1, 35% are on Sony's platform.. they stand to loose 3 to 4 million copies.. And look at what they did with Brutal Legend.. this company is becoming the OLD EA..

    If our game industry run by ppl like Acti, our game industry will go nowhere.. I think Sony should do what Nintendo power do before let ET incident hit our beloved platform

  • o_ci2007 #161 3 years ago

    remember what is written in the article are just a few quotes from a full interview. this and other articles are written/edited to intentionally mislead and provoke. the fact that the ps3 is hard to develop for is no news as even Kazuo Hirai famously said http://ww w.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56844 The point activision was making is they pay more money to sony to produce the same game on the xbox, but however they sell more on the xbox, and it takes more effort, time and money to develop for the ps3 and hence its a triple whammy for them. Due to the fact that Activision pay a flat rate to sony they would benefit more from having more people owning the ps3 as it increases their potential customers. For Sony it doesnt make financial sense to sell more ps3 as they are losing money for every console sold, they would rather try and sell more software than consoles.

  • bad09 #162 3 years ago

    "I think that we can wrap this up by say that the PS3 is dead in the water.... "

    I disagree I'm quite excited about PS3 at the moment, in fact PS3/PSP might (I say might) just make a turnaround, could 2010 ACTUALLY be the year of the Playstation? Why? The mistakes are over. slow BD drive embarassment, loosing GTA, Tekken, Rumble, Home, official firmware PSP, media on PSN, Blu pricing.Phill Harrison and David Reeves gone. All these things are now starting to finally fall into place.

    Vidzone is a great (free) service, coupled with the long overdue video store will really start to show the real potential of a PS3 to many who just (somehow) do not know what their own hardware can do. It's shocking it's taking so long TBH. Anyone know what they charge in the states BTW? I'm wondering what the price will be is there any chance it's DRM free when you buy to own?

    Exclusive games wise, sure it's lacking that's the area I'm still most critical and it's only got some gametime lately from FVII and Ghostbusters (yes I got it after all busting makes me feel good and it's bloody good - import it 360 guys!). E3 showed some goods though and all Sony really need to do is somehow stick PS2 back in, get off the quirky niche stuff and more on the stuff that made PS1/2 so great. "home" of the "Playstation brand" not scraps and years of wait or canned/left to rot series Sony.

    PSPgo and some of the software coming might also be enough to give it the boost it needs. PSP IS a great machine just with no real direction, E3 showed me they might be getting their act together.

    Couple the two machines together for music, video, games and really bring the home of the playstation brand in, it could be saved........if the price comes down!!!!! PS3/PSP/PS2 is too expensive Sony need to learn this quick for it to work.

    Besides that NXE is horrid, I shouldn't have to pay to see companies ad space frankly. Now if an EG "XBOT!" can say that surely there is hope for Sony....

  • Rack #163 3 years ago

    That's nice of them, maybe one day they'll stop supporting all platforms.

  • drumbaby #164 3 years ago

    "Then they release the PSP Go for 250 quid"

    But still have the PSP 3000 on the shelves....

  • MeBrains #165 3 years ago

    @gl3n: Can i ask you, what is the point in someone going out and investing in a PS3 over a 360? When the average punter doesn't even have access to a HD screen, let alone the inclination to buy Blu Ray discs.

    For half the price, you could have an Xbox 360 and spend the rest on a fuckton of AAA pre-owned games.

    the point would be that you have a reliable console, which has everything for modern needs boxed in. this means wifi, bt, free-online, HDD, dlna etc. So I do not mean blu-ray so much.

    Can I ask you, what is the point in investing in a 360 over a PS3? You'd eventually end up paying the same price - only for a better online experience and the marginally better multi-platform titles? Should the console actually have been better engineered, I (personally) might be tempted. As it is, I refuse to give my money to a company which knowingly puts defective hardware on the market and sells it for a premium price. 3y warranty?! - my ass.

  • des #166 3 years ago

    Fanboys can cry,moan,defend as much as they want,but at the end of the line this is just business,nothing more,nothing less.

    His comments about PSP show what kind of a joke is PSP Go...

  • Les #167 3 years ago

    "If the cost of making a ps3 version of a game is large enough to make it a better investment (in terms of returns) to make a whole new 360 game/360 dlc then why would you make a PS3 version instead of using that money to create something for the 360 with better returns per invested £."

    True, if the additional investment in porting to PS3 doesn't give them an adequate return they should invest the money somewhere where they can make a good ROI. But TBH I seriously doubt that that is the case. Because by dropping a PS3 version, all development cost must be attributed to the 360 version making its ROI go down as well.

    It's just brass talk trying to:A) get Sony to drop the price in the hope it will allow Activision to sell more games; B) Put the pressure on Sony for future contract negotiations.

    Like any 'good' business man, his priorities are:
    1) himself
    2) short term shareholder interests
    3) long term shareholder interests
    4) business partners
    5) customers
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 11:30

  • Skire #168 3 years ago

    "If Acti drop the PS3 then the PS3 dies, end of story."

    Yeah you're totally right! Who gives a crap about God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo 5 and The Last Guardian if we can't play Guitar Hero 438 and Call of Duty 94 Future Warfare 43?

  • 2099net #169 3 years ago

    I wonder if Activision has half an eye on the next generation platforms?

    Let's face it, games are expensive to develop on this generation of HD consoles. Imagine the next generation (when ever it may be - 4-6 years time).

    It would benefit Activison enormously if there was only 1 console. Sink the PS3 now, and Microsoft is the most likely default for the next generation of HD consoles. Not only that, but another reason to bet on Microsoft is its seemingly endless supply of money (something Sony as a whole is having problems with in this economic climate). Maybe they're willing to sacrifice their returns on their PS3 titles gambling their actions will result in only one console next generation and therefore a better environment for them to develop, publish and sell games in the future?

    I don't think Activision loses money on every PS3 game it publishes - probably none. Do the justify the return on invest? Who knows, probably at least half don't. We can't really say.

    However, Activison can. And Activision have proven to be ruthless over the past two years - I know of no other publisher which would decline Ghostbusters. As I understand it, its the success of Ghostbusters (or even more accurately, the success of the pre-release buzz for the Ghostbusters video game) which has all-but greenlighted an actual Ghostbusters 3 movie sequel. Likewise Brutal Legend had massive pre-release buzz. Activision has shown its capable of dropping titles if they don't consider them capable of measurements of financial success Activision seemingly demand.

    So I think it wouldn't be wise to simply dismiss this as "toys being thrown out of the pram" - Activision have made seemingly illogical decisions in the past, obviously based on profit and profit alone.

  • Farstarbuck #170 3 years ago

    Wii is doing fine, 360 and PS3 aren't (360 looks good because PS3 looks so bad basically)


    So what would be a good attach rate for the xbox to be doing well?

    Last i read they were at 8.1 games per console. If this is a bad number then like i said, what IN YOUR OPINION would be good?

  • #171 3 years ago

    Well Ubisoft makes most of its cash from the PS3, what is Activision doing wrong? Perhaps they should stick to the Wii since it has the biggest market share.

  • bad09 #172 3 years ago

    @ trebell

    I think it's taken them so long because of many of those problems the first major one of course was pricing themselves out of the market. Honestly who at Sony believed it would fly at those prices. 10 year cycle not because of PS2 but cleaning up the errors :)

    Installs aren't a problem for me now (upgraded HDD), Ghostbusters did have a lengthy one actually but still a great game. Don't really care about the differences but it's good enough on PS3 and one of the few examples of motion I've liked! Wrestling with a ghost using the DS3 is kinda fun for a wannabe Ghostbuster :)

    Yeah PSP is awesome, even better now I have actual PSP games to look forward to!

  • El-Dev #173 3 years ago

    "When the average punter doesn't even have access to a HD screen"

    Quite possibly in the third world. I don't know anyone who hasn't got at least one HD screen in their house, most people having several due to their relatively low cost nowadays.

    The best Call of Duty game was the first one on the PC. The rest have just been exactly the same with new paint jobs.

  • Hexagon #174 3 years ago

    It's news like this that keeps the video game industry interesting! :-D

  • Kerome #175 3 years ago

    Not going to happen... the economies of scale in terms of development are such that a PS3 sku is a fairly marginal additional cost in terms of total project spending.This is just Kotick trying to talk the PS3 price down, which is also not going to happen as Sony overall is hurting pretty bad from economic conditions, and have effectively already lost this round of the console wars.

  • Les #176 3 years ago

    "So what would be a good attach rate for the xbox to be doing well?

    Last i read they were at 8.1 games per console. If this is a bad number then like i said, what IN YOUR OPINION would be good?"

    Don't have a clue why you bring up attach rate as I sure as hell didn't.

    Good or bad performance has nothing to do with OPINION but with cold, hard cash. PS3 and 360 both cost billions to develop and neither has grown fast and big enough to recoup the initial investment.

  • Hexagon #177 3 years ago

    I fully support Activision when it comes to putting pressure on Sony. They are about to launch big games with one of them supposedly receiving the “biggest entertainment launch of all time” so of course they would want Sony to do as much as possible to increase the number of PlayStation 3 consoles sold. They are a business and wish to be as successful as can be and with Sony having talked the talk but not actually having walked the walk, it's hard seeing your team win the game when a team player is being more than incompetent.

    Furthermore, I myself may easily be able to afford a PlayStation 3 but I just don't see a point at that price and have been patiently waiting for a price drop for months now. Any help in achieving that price drop is appreciated. Keep it up, Activision.

  • MeBrains #178 3 years ago

    hexagon: you seem to forget - like a lot do - that worldwide sales of ps3 are faster than these of 360, but I am repeating myself...

  • GreyBeard #179 3 years ago

    The historical fact is that the price-cuts last year provided a major stimulus to 360 sales world-wide. By the same logic PS3 should see a similar boost following a price-cut. Utterly disregarding any "system warrior" BS, everyone knows that the single biggest factor limiting PS3 sales is its entry-cost. Its the most expensive hardware on the market, and regardless of Sony's "value proposition" spin that is a big problem. A price-cut would be desirable for everyone - however what is clear is that Sony have been unable to do this so far without "cutting their own throats" in terms of loss per unit of hardware sold.

    Even assuming the reports of the PS3 Slim are true, and that it will facilitate the much needed price drop, Sony still need to clear retail and distribution channels of old hardware at the current price point before announcing the new SKU. Their hands are tied basically.

    For these reason's Kotick's comment strikes me as empty sabre-rattling. There's hardly an issue of threat when the "problem" is one that is known about, and is doubtless in the process of being addressed. The question is then, why did he make this threat as all it stands to do is make Sony look weak?

    My second point answers this. Sony as a platform holder has a very significant stable of first-and-second party developers. In many respects they are directly competing against Activision on their own platform. Releasing Infamous directly before Activision's big new IP Prototype most likely didn't sit too well with Bobby. Its not a matter of which title is "better", its very clear that they are targeting a similar market. By pushing Infamous out first (and Sony did bring the release of Sucker Punch's game up, purely for this reason) they stole a lot of Prototype's thunder.

    I suspect this is simply a bit of spite on Kotick's part after seeing the sales figures for Prototype on PS3. A not-so-friendly reminder to Sony that if they fuck with him, he'll take his ball and go home.

    I'd also add that I suspect Ghostbusters somehow fits into this equation also. Activision made a ton of money off of the license back in the 80's, and looking at Activision's track record they put a lot of stock in past successes (Crash and Spyro spring to mind). It makes me wonder if the real reason Ghostbusters was dropped was Sony's (via Columbia pictures) refusal to allow them to milk the franchise annually.


    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 14:05

  • Hexagon #180 3 years ago

    @ MeBrains

    I believe it is more relevant that at this point in time, Sony has sold a significantly lesser amount of consoles than Microsoft and Nintendo. In addition to that, it is harder to develop games for the PlayStation 3 than for the Xbox 360 and the Wii, ergo, it costs more to develop games on the PlayStation 3. Why? Sony made the PS3 difficult to develop for on purpose. It definitely isn't that hard to see where Kotick is coming from.

  • Rodchenko #181 3 years ago

    Can i ask you, what is the point in someone going out and investing in a PS3 over a 360?

    Can I ask you why you care so much about what other people like to spend their money on?

  • drumbaby #182 3 years ago

    "Can i ask you, what is the point in someone going out and investing in a PS3 over a 360? "

    Better hardware, better exclusives, free online, Blu-Ray.

    That's 4 points.

  • bmxbandit #183 3 years ago

    Activision being greedy, stupid bastards? Meh, nothing new here.

    I bet EA must love the fact their super shitty image now belongs to Activision.

    ^5 EA ... I guess bad guys CAN change.

  • bmxbandit #184 3 years ago

    Calgon ... stupid as fuck hypocrites like you are what make me hate modern gaming.

    Do you realise how much of a delusional fuck that post makes you look?

    They're videogames ... toys ... and if one of the best toys gos, its bad for everybody.

  • Arcadiian #185 3 years ago

    Reliability is almost irrelevant. I blew into endless MegaDrive cartridges, played my PlayStation upside down during the last years of its life and opened up my Dreamcast every month to clean those bastard metal prongs. Price too. It cost me a fortune paying per-minute to play Phantasy Star Online and I emptied my wallet to buy an original Xbox on launch day. But I wanted to play Halo.

    Capture the imagination of the public, and something will sell. Just like Wii Fit. People just don't care about Blu-ray in the same way they did about DVDs. And they don't care about the PS3 in the same way they did about the original PlayStation. Somebody earlier in the thread labelled these people as 'fickle'. But at one point, it was Sony who caught the imagination of the public, driving people away from SEGA and Nintendo. That's just how things go.

    This is an entertainment industry. It's supposed to be about enjoyment. People aren't going to wait for 'the year of the PlayStation 3' to enjoy themselves, when they can waggle their way through 2009 or unlock achievements on Live. I'm sure Sony will work hard to claw its fans back though, right? And I can't wait to see what they come up with. I just hope it's something more exciting than potential and a 10 year console cycle.

  • ronuds #186 3 years ago

    "Should the console actually have been better engineered, I (personally) might be tempted. As it is, I refuse to give my money to a company which knowingly puts defective hardware on the market and sells it for a premium price. 3y warranty?! - my ass."

    lol - Sony's hardware track record over the last decade is sparkling clean, though! :D

    Will their battery make my PC blow up today or will the PS2 stop reading discs? I can never tell!

  • Les #187 3 years ago

    "Better hardware, better exclusives, free online, Blu-Ray.

    That's 4 points."

    Region-freeness is a fifth.

  • KayJay #188 3 years ago

    "everyone knows that the single biggest factor limiting PS3 sales is its entry-cost"

    I dont know, me and 22.73 million other PS3 owners may disagree (Thanks Wikipedia).

    For an overpriced/no gamed bit of black stuff it seems to be going okay.

    I believe the suggested loss of Activision would not put to much of a dent into what Sony are after. Christ have you seen all
    the 1st party stuff coming out in the coming 6-12 months and even the past 6-8 months. I don't want to do lists but there has been plenty of great stuff on disk and from PSN.
    Not just your generic FPS but things that really get my gaming blood flowing. different things that really stand out.
    If Acti things they are onto a loser with the PS3 then hey I doubt Sony would really lose that much sleep.

    This guy just sounds like he wants to force Sony's hand a little and perhaps he think he might come out of it the other end some kind of hero.

    Sony will drop the price but no because this twit thinks they should. But hey, again 22.73 million people didn't mind the price.

    ;-)
    kj
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 18:47

  • toye #189 3 years ago

    PS3 isnt the best selling console, but with a bigger install base then dreamcast or gamecube had. Didnt companies want to develop for them? Sure, games are more expensive to develop today, but still 20+ million PS3 units isnt that bad and could turn a nice profit. Lowering the price of a new PS3 would sell a couple of more units and put Sony in a tough spot where they have to make it up somewhere else.
    Remember when the first Xbox was released and MS went on about having the lowest license and still had to back out from their promise, otherwise the loss would be even larger. The same with Sony, they could reduce the PS3 base unit price but in the other end it could lead to higher royalties for the publishers and even higher pricepoints for the small guitars and other peripherals to make up for the loss.

  • MeBrains #190 3 years ago

    @ronuds: no company's hardware track record is sparkling clean. All things break. That is just a given.

    imHo though, there is a mighty difference between a failure rate of 0.001% (or however low was it for the batteries?) and - depending on reports - up to 60% in 360's case, don't you tend to agree?

    btw kj, vgchartz's numbers tend to be quite reliable: http://vg chartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=W... ; they're updated weekly, and corrected monthly.

  • o_ci2007 #191 3 years ago

    To all people saying who cares about activision games? the answer is PS3 owners care more about multi platform activision games than exclusive games. The numbers speak loud and clear, more ps3 owners bought call of duty 4 than uncharted and killzone 2 combined.

  • KayJay #192 3 years ago

    "btw kj, vgchartz's numbers tend to be quite reliable: http://vg chartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=W... ; they're updated weekly, and corrected monthly."

    There you go. Who needs a price cut. Its doing just fine.

    Anyway who really wants a price cut. This just means all the Chavz's, Slags & 12 year olds will get hold of one and it will turn into Live overnight with annoying abusive idiots shouting into my ear...

  • El-Dev #193 3 years ago

    "Since when do gamers have an allegiance to these corporate f*ckhead demons?"

    You have clearly missed something over the last couple of years.

    This leads on to the one thing that has amused me the most over the last few years. One massive corporation brought console gaming to the masses in the last 15 years and is now being crucified by certain people and one corporation has released several pieces of software that will be used by the masses that aren't fit for public consumption/usage. One is viewed as being TEH EPIC PWNAGE FAIL and the other sells 30m consoles and is viewed as the greatest victory mankind has seen since, well, ever.

    The only other comparison I can relate to it is BMW vs Mercs*, yet you never see BMW drivers call Merc driver a stupid c***(which you can see on EG on a daily basis) for buying a different car but here you do for someone buying a console from one massive company instead of a console from another massive company.

    *My comparison is based on the general opinion that BMWs are usually seen as being the better driving car but they still just aren't as good as Mercs.

  • Retroid #194 3 years ago

    I certainly wouldn't want MS to come out on top as much as Sony have been; just look how arrogant it made them :/

    Competition is healthy.

  • davearnie #195 3 years ago

    Hi guys read this every day but first post. Here are my thoughts on this argument. First, I would like to say that although I currently own an Xbox 360, I would never say that I am a fanboy for one system or another.

    I have been a gamer since first owning a commodore 64 - and no im not very old 25. After that it was the mega drive and then the playstation 1.

    So I have been a fan of the playstion since it first arrived here and have very much enjoyed sonys first party games.

    After the playstation, I supported both the ps2 and later the xbox.

    I would say that sonys output and strategy seem to have changed alot since the ps2. From my point of view, the ps1 was about innovative games first and also about have a range of games that appealed across the whole gaming demographic.

    This continued to a great extent with the ps2. I must say though that as someone that enjoys the FPS genre, I could never get into it on the PS2, I felt that the controller really was not designed for these sorts of games and hence bought an xbox for this purpose.

    The xbox itself was a great colsole for the 'hardcore' gamer but it missed a trick by not really appealing to the broad audience that the PS2 did and also by coming late to the party. Sony really were the first company to really push themselves towards the casual market while still keeping its core audience happy.

    What happened next though was a bit of a disaster.

    Sony as a company got into a massive war over Blu-Ray Vs HD DVD. It appears to me that because of the massive install base of the PS2, that Sony decided to put a Blu-Ray player in every PS3 in an effort to simply win the war. This indeed worked. However, in doing this, it appears that Sony were not really thinking about games much at this stage and more about winning a movie based war - something which would be very profitable for them.

    As a result, we got the Blu-Ray player, a piece of kit that was very expensive to produce and therefore Sony had to have a relatively retail cost for its PS3. I think their thoughts were that people who were going into the next gen for movies would buy one over a dedicated player as the PS3 was cheaper or at least the same price as a player. Sound reasoning - but only assuming that people were infact looking to move into this new era of HD Movies. I think they also did not take into account that the general public would still maybe rather not buy a console over just a player.

    Of course Microsoft are no angels in this, they released a console which was full of design flaws just so they could get a head start over Sony.

    However, Microsoft do know their audience very well. They know what owners of the Xbox want/wanted. They have a very very good and reliable online service as well. But microsoft have trouble getting the casual audience to buy their consoles as people assume that it is a gamers machine. Sony on the other hand also have trouble as Nintendo have stolen a large part of their PS2 audience which would maybe have moved to PS3 if it werent for the wii.

    With high development costs, coming late to the party and no longer appearing to chase their traditional core audience sony are struggling. They are no longer significantly catering to the casual market and they only have a handful of exclusives.

    I would love to be playing MGS and Drakes Fortune. But as it stands, it is not a justifyable cost to buy a console just to play a few exclusive titles.

    I also much prefer the controller on the Xbox for FPS and so naturally buy Xbox.

    But i do think it is silly really to be a fanboy for one big company or another. To me, it is just a piece of hardware for me to play games on that I want to play. The Xbox is a lot cheaper here and also the games are more expensive on PS3 so it is a no brainer for me. Also, as has been said already, Blu-Ray uptake here is fairly slow, I am a massive film buff and watch movies almost as much as I play games. Saying that, I have no desire to upgrade to Blu-Ray just yet, I would have to replace dozens of DVDs and also pay a premium to do so. I am not alone on this, the average customer would find it hard to do so as well.

    So for me the PS3, although a much more realiable piece of hardware is just too expensive to justify the cost of buying one over an Xbox. If I can play pretty much the same games on either piece of kit, why wouldnt I want to do it as cheap as possible. Also bear in mind that Sony, unfortunately, have managed to lose quite a few of their exclusives.

    And that is why I think Sony are losing this generation and struggling with up-take rates of their hardware and software. The hardware is too expensive in relation to every other console on the market, the software is more expensive than every other console on the market. Also, as a consumer, if you want to play a certain game you can usually get it on the cheaper console anyway. Most consumers dont read these websites, they dont even know that most games texhnically run slightly better on the Xbox. All they care about is how much do the games cost and how much is the hardware to play these games on. Imagine for instance parents buying their teenagers a new console for Christmas, and we wonder why the PS3 does not sell more units?

    Edited by 1 at 21/06/09 @ 04:54

  • Les #196 3 years ago

    "the software is more expensive than every other console on the market."

    ?! Is that true? Get all my PS3 games via import and thus am able to take advantage from the weak dollar and GBP. I've never been able to get games this cheap before TBH. But then again, as I don't own a 360 (unless you really crave some exclusives, there's little point in owning both HD consoles IMO) , I've never really investigated its game prices.
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/09 @ 21:10

  • Grogmonkey #197 3 years ago

    The software is exactly the same price across the board. In a few cases, the PS3 version has actually been cheaper (usually only by about £2).

  • GreyBeard #198 3 years ago

    @kj66246

    I said limiting sales, not stopping them!

    Surely you aren't going to argue that were Sony able to sell PS3 at 100$ less than its current price they would be more competitive with MS and Nintendo's offerings?

    This is not to say that the PS3 is overpriced as such (if Sony are still making a loss on each unit sold you can't reasonably cry foul), just that its cost is prohibitive to a large chunk of its potential market.

    Personally, I like my PS3 more than my 360. But, I have to say that -like a lot of people- I bought a 360 first because it seemed like a better deal at the time.

  • gaselite #199 3 years ago

    God, such childish rhetoric throughout.

    It's just a transparent attempt to hold Sony to ransom. It'll probably work eventually but Sony will claim Activision had nothing to do with it (which may or may not be true).

    F*ck Activision AND Sony.

    Videogames being made by lawyers and demons. We should boycott the lot.

    Did you know: Many lawyers play, enjoy and respect videogames! It's shocking, I know!

  • GamesConnoisseur #200 3 years ago

    HOLD on lads... let us see HOW this will actually turns out! I had said this is purely posturing but if its do get serious which I doubt, then it would have a far fetching consquences if at least the message is that Sony is not that important (any more) to all games publisher business if nothing else.

    Sony may be damned either way and there could be no easy decision as they would not want to cave in and instead consider a more graceful way of keeping publishers onside BUT public still steaming ahead and that there is nothing wrong and just a normal posturings.

    We ll know that presently PS3 is still firmly in a 3rd place and third party games sales need to pick up abit more, the same can be said for Nintendo as their first party games are doing far far better than third parties publishers. MS is not exactly where they would want to be but they are pretty chuffed what they managed to do so far.

    At the end, the market is pretty much more level playing field and that is bad? Not for us consumers as better competition means we would tend to see a better quality in products and better prices.

  • GreyBeard #201 3 years ago

    /facepalm

    A new low has been reached.

  • morriss #202 3 years ago

    "Better hardware, better exclusives, free online, Blu-Ray.

    That's 4 points."

    1. Not any more.
    2. That's down to taste but considering every major PS3 exclusive hasn't reviewed very well I'd be inclined to say "wrong"
    3. You get what you pay for.
    4. You can buy a 360 and a standalone BD player for about the same price as a PS3. Not a selling point any more.

  • DjFlex52 #203 3 years ago

    "the software is more expensive than every other console on the market."

    ?! Is that true? Get all my PS3 games via import and thus am able to take advantage from the weak dollar and GBP. I've never been able to get games this cheap before TBH. But then again, as I don't own a 360 (unless you really crave some exclusives, there's little point in owning both HD consoles IMO) , I've never really investigated its game prices.

    @Les

    But do the majority of gamers want to go through the trouble of importing games, Les?
    Most people just want to go to the shop and buy a game :)

    Damn, do I hate that Prototype ad!

  • Goodfella #204 3 years ago

    2. That's down to taste but considering every major PS3 exclusive hasn't reviewed very well I'd be inclined to say "wrong"

    Why are you spewing forth complete and utter bollocks?

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/i nfamous?q=infamous
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps 3/uncharteddrakesfortune
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http:// www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/metalgearsolid4gunsof thepatriots?q=metal%20gear%20solid%204
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=htt p://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/ratchetandclankfu turetoolsofdestruction?q=ratchet%20and%20clank
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/littl ebigplanet
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/killzone2
    ]    http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/va lkyriachronicles
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/wipeouthd
    ]    http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resistanc e2
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/r esistancefallofman
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/super stardusthd
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/warhawk ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    Yes, I went to all that effort just for you.

  • SuperStalin #205 3 years ago

    Piracy! Piracy! Piracy!

    First they blame all their losses on piracy, now they have a system fully pirate-free,
    and what do they do? They say they don't want to support it.

    So, it turns out that piracy never was such a big problem.

  • j-bo #206 3 years ago

    "Can i ask you, what is the point in someone going out and investing in a PS3 over a 360?"

    Well, I have a gaming PC that outstrips the xbox 360 easily, and more of the xbox titles overlap with the PC, so it made sense to go with the ps3.

    Plus it works fab as a blu ray player/media hub in my living room.

    /shrug

    if the xbox pulls out something to justify owning it and a gaming PC, I'd prob buy one too.
    Edited by 1 at 22/06/09 @ 12:12

  • jmg123 #207 3 years ago

    maybe sony should say you don't have to pay us royalties, but you can't make any 360 games. That would be hilarious, we would all be able to watch farticus tell us that MW2 is rubbish, and no-one ever bought any of the call of duty series.

  • itsfuzzy #208 3 years ago

    Its very simple. The massive royalties they are paying Sony are not getting covered by the amount of titles sold. They are not making enough money. So why should they keep on giving them $400 million if the figures dont add up? Although Sony are not going to reduce the cost of the console because Activision want them to, and why should they. Maybe they should have looked at renegotiating the royalty payments instead of crying to the Times about their issues with Sony.

  • Quak #209 3 years ago

    @Les

    For those that don't get it: The number of games each console owner buys isn't dependent on the price of the console. A price drop won't make me as someone that already owns the console all of a sudden buy more games.

    That's not what he's saying so I guess it's you that doesn't "get it".

    As time goes on, more and more of the gaming hardcore will already have bought a PS3 as by definition, the early adaptors buy earlier into the technology cycle. As time goes on you rely more and more on "casual" purchasers who will buy not because they're fanboys who dream about the hardware, but because the price is right and they fancy "a gaming console" or "a blu-ray player". These people are more price-sensitive - they didn't rush out and buy the hardware on day #1 irrespective of the price for example - and are less likely to drop another few hundred on games at the same time as making the initial hardware purchase.

    So to conclude, yes, for any given price the average attach rate is likely to fall as time goes on. Of course, the rules are changed when the price drops and more people decide to take the plunge and buy some games at the same time, due to the fact that the initial purchase is costing less.

  • man.the.king #210 3 years ago

    Ooh, did I miss the train?

    Anyway, for the remaining stragglers, here's my opinion, for what it's worth (probably nothing :) ):

    Looks like Bobby Kotick was trying to strong-arm Sony into either lowering the PS3 prices or decrease the licensing costs.

    On the other hand, I really can't understand some PS3 supporters being so supportive of the PS3 price tag. Sure, for me, it was an investment well worth it (even though I bought the more expensive US 60 GB launch model), but for others it might be a tad too much and all that is stopping them from getting it. I know a few folks like that. And I really think (and I think most people other than the most hardcore PS3 fanboys would agree) a PS3 price drop, maybe by $100, would really get the ball rolling.

    Maybe it will happen in late August or September when the rumored PS3 slim comes out?
    Edited by 2 at 22/06/09 @ 17:21