Sony responds to Activision's threats Comments by Ellie Gibson

Your standard "Breathe normally, keep calm and carry on" message then.

I wonder what would drama happen if they cancelled MW2 for the PS3 then?

Looks like someone is pissed that the cost of the PS3 will offset their sales of their peripherals games namely Tony Hawk Ride, DJ Hero, Band Hero and Guitar Hero

Now who is the greedy pig?

Hmmm.... Activision threatens to "DreamCast" PS3?...

Adopt, adapt and improve!

Thats a very... Safe response.

350?

BS.

I'd be genuinly interested to see what would happen.

Make it so.

MW2 will still be released they said 2010 and 2011 your idiots, MW2 is out 2009.


There are some stupid people on here

@NotSoSlim
If you goto beta-http://www.eurogamer.net version of the site, you actually can give him a +1! :)

Tremendous momentum? Is that the best spin they can put on it?

Ironic
Why don't activision bring out a console, it would cost less than their peripherals.

"Tremendous momentum? Is that the best spin they can put on it"

It's quite heavy.

I thought they had a pretty good E3, so he's not really talking complete crap is he?

sonys reply is as good as a no comment then which is expected as they dont want to generate more media coverage.sony have to take the comments of the worlds biggest software publisher seriously but seeing as this is a 1st time situation for them(ie losing) do they know how to react and dig the ps3 out of the slump its in.the loss of COD would be a serious if not fatal blow on its own and as they are usual the number 1 game around christmas the most damaging.imagine if the 3/4 million ps3 (or potential) owners all bought a 360 to play the game MS lead would double every year.thats why i dont know why microsoft just buy the cod brand and instead of buying DLC at daft prices.this would defo win the gen for them

seriously, how does that respond to activision??

they have good relations with third party publishers......

not exactly a definitive reponse is it? ; )

donnie, please. there is more than just COD. Well, for ps3 owners there is... COD also is not a system seller. the last guardian might be. the PS3-exclusive new r* game. uncharted 2 maybe. MAG possibly. heavy rain's worth a mention... etc.

can't believe there to be a single soul moving from PS3 to 360 because of COD...

no MW2 on PS3 = PS3 death. MW2 is widely expected to be the biggest selling game of the year by a country mile.

ME BRAINS there is more than just cod granted BUT it is and will be the best selling game on ps3 it is also the premier online shooter of this gen on both systems.if sony lose it how can it be anything more than an unmitigated disaster and a major boost to the 360.plus those games you mention will not attract new buyers to ps3 regardless of reviews as is demonstrated by the poor sales of sony exclusives.almost every gamer casual or hardcore has heard of the cod franchise.heavy rain,mag do you honestly think joe public will by a ps3 for these unknown ips when a 360 available for £150 less.deserved or not activision games sell well

@MeBrains,

I think the point donnie is getting at is that CoD will be a system seller that pulls people away from the PS3 to the 360. To date, CoD:MW is the 2nd highest selling PS3 title, with World at War being the 7th. Yes, there are other titles on the PS3 that are desirable, but I'm not sure exactly how desirable.

Uncharted, while undoubtably a great game, sold the numbers it did primarily because it was a "free" pack-in with PS3 consoles for such a long time. Exactly the same happened to Motorstorm and the sales are oft-quoted, while ignoring the fact that the follow-up, which wasn't a pack-in, did barely a fifth of the sales. So Uncharted will do well, but it will only sell to the same audience that got the game as a freebie with their PS3 and will struggle to gain a new audience.

Of the others you mention, I see no "system sellers" in there. In fact, very few titles ever become what could be called System Sellers (ie: move a significant number of consoles). Halo 1 was, MGS was, FF7 was, Singstar was, WiiFit is and GTA3 (plus the sequels) pretty much made the PS2. Other than that, not so much.

And for the record, MAG won't sell systems and neither will Heavy Rain. And certainly neither will The Last Guardian, God of War 3, etc. as those are niche titles.

The New R* game? Probably. But it's also probably a 2011 title.

However, at the end of the day it's all academic because, as someone said earlier in the thread, CoD:MW2 will be released on the PS3, as will the new Guitar Hero titles, etc. because they are already well into development. Kocktik is speaking about potentially not greenlighting PS3 titles that will be released late 2010/11.

It's even more of a pointless discussion because it is just posturing on the part of Activision. No way would they drop the PS3 as a platform. The PS3 will be in the mid-30m sales this time next year and that is a huge potential userbase for any publisher.

Activision are becoming more arrogant with each passing week, they've become very power hungry, and it shows.

It's funny (to me, anyway), but I keep seeing peoples' comments of 'Dreamcast' and I just don't agree. Would losing Activision's output have as much of an impact on PS3 as EA's refusal to touch SEGA's beastie? I doubt it; whilst there's no arguing that titles like GH and COD are massive sellers, I'd wager that the head-to-head unit sales against the likes of FIFA, Madden et al don't come that close.

In the grand scheme of things, I can't see Sony eventually telling Kotick to bugger off (and in effect throw them and their not-insubstantial output into the arms of their competitors), but likewise I can't see Activision not publishing for a platform that's going to net them a severe amount of revenue.

Either way, I'll continue to watch with cynical amusement.

cue a futher 234 comments........

Kotick just likes waving his cock in public.

It's a good conversation piece but Yoda is more likely to offer Darth Vader a foot massage/blow job than a split between Activision & PS3.

@MeBrains
I have three friends who have switched to the PS3 from the Xbox 360 to play CoD 4:MW.

Granted that is not the only reason, they are trying to get me to do the same, sadly for all of us there are not enough games I want to buy on the PS3 yet and I am having a great time on the 360 with a lot of games yet to play.

I promised myself I would have a PS3 when there were six games I wanted to play, the time is getting closer.

I think the situation here is like the stock market if one person panics it can spread to others, if Activision leave the PS3 then this may convince smaller studios to do the same and end up a self fulfilling prophecy.

I wish he had commented on the issue directly. It's no fun like this.

how is that a response to the threats exactly?

Don't forget Kotick also famously told the record industry they should pay him for their music to appear in his games.

He's a powerful dude, but his ego is starting to get the better of him.

have to agree with the general opinion that this isnt actually a response to the activision statement at all. they could publish a book on vague press releases just using material from the last 12 months alone

@moggsy
350?

BS.

Naw, it's just carefully worded; he said 350 across all their platforms - PSP, PS2 and PS3 - and he never said anything about when they were due out.

As others have said, it isn't really "responding" to Activision's statement though.

Sony still needs to learn that quoting numbers for games "to be released" means nothing. Take out the games that will get cancelled, the studios that will fold before the games are released and most obviously the number of games that will be shit or appear in superior form on the Xbox 360, and you don't actually have that much to choose from.

The PS3 is and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a console that's only worth it for the dozen-or-so exclusives, and as such is a very expensive investment that a lot of people just can't justify.

Of course, maybe things will be different in 10 years' time (if the PS brand still exists by then). ;)

"have to agree with the general opinion that this isnt actually a response to the activision statement at all. they could publish a book on vague press releases just using material from the last 12 months alone"

I agree that it is rather vague. But they wouldn't have made the statement without the comments of Kotick. So in that sense it is indeed a response. ;)

But also in the 'proper' sense it is a response. Kotick's remarks weakened PS3's position. This statement is meant to 'prove' that it's position is still strong. Directly referring to Kotick's remarks however would 1) again give air time to his negative remarks and 2) denying stuff in public hurts your position (that's unfortunately how human psychology works).

@denying stuff in public hurts your position (that's unfortunately how human psychology works)

"denying stuff in public hurts your position (that's unfortunately how human psychology works)"

And that is something I have never been able to understand. I mean, if I were telling the truth about something, I would deny it - in public. So I really don't understand this tendency.

Sorry for the off-topic post.

And that is something I have never been able to understand

Has to do with the reptilian brain me guess, and goes along the tendency to go with people that talk tough or give false hope, and ignore/avoid those that tell bleak stuff or use words of caution. Truth has nothing to do with this, it's just about siding with the strongest, and preying on those that look weak.

I have three friends who have switched to the PS3 from the Xbox 360 to play CoD 4:MW.

Sorry, could you just explain this to me?

Your three friends switched from the Xbox 360 that has 13 million people playing CoD 4:MW, to the PS3 so they could play....CoD 4: MW...

Les

I agree but I dont think PS3 fans want to keep seeing the same vague statements. perhaps something a bit more bullish, a bit more positive - along the lines of "whilst we acknowledge activisions point of view it is our belief that the titles still to be released during the current contractual agreement will more than cover activisions expenses"

@SpaceMidget75

Correct. It was a surprise to me. If you are playing with friends then it does not matter how many other subscribers there are I guess.

We all live within 40 minutes drive from each other, as I said I will eventually have a PS3 but I was certainly not going to buy one to play CoD 4.

I still don't get what you're saying. All four of you own/owned 360s which you could play CoD 4 on together. What's the point in all switching to a PS3 to play the same game?

Does sounds like a load of old bollocks I'm afraid. :)

Oh come on, the whole thing's stupid. Even if Activision's making more money from the 360, Kotick would have to be more stupid than most CEO's to think that this means that not supporting the ps3 is a good idea. Fact is they make huge amounts of money from the ps3 and they couldn't make more by putting teh same investment into 360 exclusives.

@SpaceMidget75
I am saying the three others switched for reasons I do not understand.

I do not yet have a PS3 as there are not enough games I wish to play yet to justify the purchase.

They are certainly trying to get me to buy a PS3 to play CoD.

Fair enough mate, I shall interrogate no more. ;)

Safe responce, but barely one as a clear responce with any value to it to bother with..

@SpaceMidget75
I asked one of the three why he swapped, I have not seen the other two for a while.

Xbox had red ringed for the second time he then purchased a PS3 and sold the repaired xBox after it returned.

And that is something I have never been able to understand. I mean, if I were telling the truth about something, I would deny it - in public. So I really don't understand this tendency.

It is weird, but it's something along the lines of: "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."