The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Activision/Blizzard thinking about taking out support for PS3/PSP?
urahonky
Cynical Old ManRegistered User regular
Cynical Old ManRegistered User regular
http://gizmodo.com/5296617/the-biggest-game-publisher-threatens-to-ditch-ps3psp
If this is true, how much of an impact would it have? I personally only own a few Activision titles on both the 360/PS3 combined. Do you think this would hurt the PS3?
If not, who would start such a rumor!?
This is bad. The prisoners have grabbed the keys. Activision Blizzard, the world's largest producer of video games, is publicly threatening to abandon Sony's PS3 and PSP platforms.
From Activision Blizzard President and CEO Bobby Kotick:
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...When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support [PS3 and PSP].
Kotick wants to see Sony's licensing fees reduced (Activision paid Sony $500 million in royalties and "other goods" last year) and a PS3 price cut. He probably wouldn't mind seeing some incentives like advertising dollars, either (something Microsoft can be pretty generous about).
Oh, and if there's one publisher that can say these things, it's the conglomerate makers of Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, multiple Dreamworks and Marvel movie titles, World of Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo—even if those Blizzard games aren't on consoles at this time.
As of now, Kotick's words are just corporate smacktalk (bottom line: Activision still makes money on the platform). But what if a company like EA came forward and said the same thing? No good can come of this for Sony.
If this is true, how much of an impact would it have? I personally only own a few Activision titles on both the 360/PS3 combined. Do you think this would hurt the PS3?
If not, who would start such a rumor!?
urahonky on
0
Posts
You obviously are not familiar with Bobby Kotick. They aren't actually thinking about it, they're just saying it so Sony will throw some more money at them.
Likely though, this is an empty threat to maybe try and get Sony to do something.
My understanding is that the PS3 tools just aren't that streamlined or user friendly.
"EA of Old" is a myth. They are still as bad today as they ever were. And they are way worse than Activision.
How so? EA make games I enjoy such as Burnout Paradise, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge and Rock Band. They've also massively improved FIFA in the last couple of years. There aren't any Activision games on my shelf.
I also don't like Activision's bully boy attitude such as this recent threat, the lawsuit against Double Fine and only wanting franchises they can "exploit" yearly. Kotick is repugnant to me.
And you might recall a little clusterfuck called Spore? With its over-the-top DRM? Or the fact that they are still cranking out a new Madden every single year with nothing more than updated rosters and calling it a new game and selling it for 60 bucks.
Maybe of course it's just marketing.
Activision meanwhile have been nothing but dickheads ever since the Acti-Blizzard merge.
Activision is way worse than EA ethically. Way way way way way worse. But they also generate a shitton of money.
EA own DICE, Criterion and Visceral Games.
I can't speak for Madden but FIFA has been improving year on year, it's more than a roster update.
Ditto with the NHL series. NHL 09 was pretty damn awesome.
Steam: TheArcadeBear
So, if D3 does go console and the PS3 doesn't get it, to call it a missed opportunity will be the least.
Since a game of that magnitude will be a console seller no if ands or buts.
I myself am all set to buy a whole new computer once the game is a week from release in order to take advantage off of any deals that will be going on.
3ds Friend Code: 1375-7311-7639
And I don't own a PS3 anyway so...this doesn't really affect me.
Though it is kind of a big deal, I think. To have the CEO of one of the top 3 publishers say that it's getting dangerously close to them not making enough of a return on their investment in a major console.
The idea that, say, CoD4 and 5 - two of the biggest titles in recent memory - weren't purchased enough on the PS3 to adequately cover development/publishing costs is, well, shocking. It is to me at least.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
With many games having a cost similar to a big budget movie, I say yes.
It's hard to justify spending money to develop a game on a platform that won't sell nearly as well as it would on the 360/wii.
3ds Friend Code: 1375-7311-7639
You are assuming that Activision dropping support (which I don't see happening btw) would have no secondary effects. In reality losing some of its biggest franchises would be a serious blow to the PS3 and could easily lead to more 3rd parties dropping the system.
No they don't. The cost structure of HD games make it pretty dumb to pass up the additional PS3 sales since the cost of porting is low compared to the cost of art assets, etc.
However, 3rd parties have everything to gain by pressuring MS and Sony to spend even more billions of dollars trying to expand the HD install base.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I don't buy that PS3 games aren't making Activision any money. If a numbers came out that they're making a profit of even one penny on Sony systems, it's worth keeping the projects open to, if for no other reason, keep people employed, cultivate talent, and keep up momentum on various platforms.
Now, if they weren't lying and Sony's platforms were bleeding money on them, they'd just start canceling projects outright or they'd go to Sony, say "we can't turn a profit under your conditions, we're leaving". And then Sony could either change their terms or Activision would prune off the unprofitable projects.
What's happening right now is the ever-present third option: pruning no projects because there is no real issue and making public statements in an attempt to cast Sony in a bad light so that Activision might be able to strike a more profitable deal for no other reason than to be awful, immoral pricks. I guess there is the 4th option too, where Activision tried to work with Sony in expanding the market, grew frustrated with Sony's disckishness, and decided to pull this stunt. Both are reasonable options considering the parties involved.
That's not how it works.
Assets across 360, PS3 and PC are shared. Just like they are for PSP, Wii and PS2. It makes no sense to develop a third party game for just one system, it's a waste of resources.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
...unless the extra costs of porting over to the PS3, which is a pain in the ass to develop, isn't worth it considering PS3 versions of games, on average, sell vastly less than the 360 version. And it's been rumored Sony's royalty costs are high.
Though I suspect in this case it's a bluff, since Activision's PS3 sales are so high.
or they where looking at their numbers and started to wonder if it was even worth paying all that money on royalties and such for a lower return on Sony's console. It's not enough to make them stop developing games but enough to sit down and go "Is it worth it?"
Also, I can understand ignoring the PSP. I have one myself but I rarely find myself playing it. The games tend to be so-so at best and the ones that do shine make you think how the hell is this handheld not doing better than it is.
3ds Friend Code: 1375-7311-7639
It's probably a firm line (somewhere between hard and soft) telling Sony to cut their damn console prices. Their adamant stance to not do so at this point is pure lolsony hubris*. There are probably plenty of current Wii or 360 owners who might consider a cheaper PS3 to give them access to the wealth of PS3 exclusive titles.
*If sony wasn't around to shit on, who would we beat up on? Peter "MY GAME IS GODS GAME" Molyneux?
Not quite, the cell processor and blu-ray read speed make games on the PS3 come out a little differently. It's the reason why you have mandatory installs that 360 doesn't need to bother with. The assets may be similar but the execution is different in other words.
There's also the fact that you must pay royalties and other such fees to the console maker which I assume covers things like dev kits and such.
So in the end you end up paying alot for a little gain.
3ds Friend Code: 1375-7311-7639
Am I making any sense here?
Large, well-run companies don't really do this. If the concrete costs or even the opportunity costs aren't worth it, they would schedule meetings immediately with Sony and try to resolve the problem. If Sony told them to fuck off, they'd start axing any projects without too much sunk cost.
Grandstanding like this only serves one purpose: to get a better bargaining position. And the only reason to do that is if you think Sony is holding out on you and trying a mutually beneficial deal didn't work because either you asked for too much or they didn't want to give enough. Either way, when companies start throwing tantrums like this, at least one is misbehaving.
It does indeed read data slower than the 360's drive. It's new technology after all, and there's more data to read. DVD's started out slow too. That's why so many PS3 games auto-install big chunks of themselves, because otherwise the load times would be absurd.
And Rob, it seems on the surface stupid that Sony hasn't reduced the price, but Sony themselves have said it still costs 10% more to make a PS3 than to sell it. At the current price. That's nuts. So if they cut the price, they lose a bundle. But if they don't, they run the risk of alienating customers, retailers and developers.
I'm hoping for a price drop on the PS3 soon because I know one thing for absolutely certain.
When Heavy Rain comes out. I WILL buy a PS3. I've held out through other titles that looked interesting (inFamous, Uncharted, Eye of Judgement, etc.) but Heavy Rain will break me.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
...well, now he lies through his teeth, probably in response to some backstage argument with somebody at Sony. He just wants a price drop to lead to a bigger installed base without having to pay anything for it while Sony loses a bunch of money. Of course, like everybody else said, he has no plans of dropping Sony support. PS3 games may be less profitable, but less profitable is still profitable. This would be the first case in history a corporation willingly makes a move to make less money.
What annoys me here, like in the other examples, is that he is purposefully being an asshole. The PR move here is this: I go on the record with the empty threat and you may know it's empty, but it's still fodder for the Microsoft fanboys in the console war, so by saying this I'm causing you a PR hit. Now show me the money or I'll do it again.
I also disagree with Lucascraft. If you compare Riccitiello's discourse with this... well, one, EA didn't drop any niche titles because of the crisis. Even Mirror's Edge 2 is in development, and even I don't know if that's reasonable, plus they picked up Brütal Legend. But, really, what sold me on that guy's management of EA was this interview in Kotaku:
http://kotaku.com/5284630/ea-considered-doing-its-own-natal-backs-sensible-motion-gaming
...the guy quite openly states that they were thinking about buying the Natal tech when it was being shopped around but he's glad MS did it first because that way he can still publish for it without having to invest in R&D. Not only does it make him sound like a clever businessman, it doesn't make him sound like a douche trying to play mindgames with the rest of the industry.
I support every dev team working with Activision but I honestly hope their business end starts failing a bit so that they'll renew their upper management because I frankly hate their style right now.
What the hell are you talking about? Over the last few years EA have been making a bunch of original titles and focused less on licensed games, whereas in the past their mentality was the complete opposite. Moreso, they've bought out a bunch of good-to-great studios (Bioware, DICE, Pandemic and Criterion) and haven't fucked around with them, like they did with Westwood and Bullfrog. And lastly, they've set up partnerships with studios like Valve, id, Double Fine and Epic. Worse than Activision my ass.
Anyway, if I remember correctly, the PS3 pulls in fairly substantial profits for Activision so he's pretty obviously bluffing to get Sony to drop the price. Still a dick move though but then it's Activision, what do you expect?
Delta Assault: No, you're not making sense. The PS3's 2xBD drive is a bit slower than the 360's 12xDVD drive. That doesn't mean BD drives can't be faster, it's just that the PS3's launch was too early to have a better drive included.
Isn't Activision a publicly traded company? He could have the board crawling up his ass to get the quarter to quarter profits up, now.
So far, he hasn't had to do that. Why? His company now has the big fat WoW profits to snork up. That, plus the success of Guitar Hero, made him a celebrated success in the biz press last year.
Then again, in the fourth quarter of last year Activision managed to lose money despite the releases of Guitar Hero Stuff, CoD and the WoW expansion. And Christmas. And continuing WoW revenue. And the fact that they no longer had any merger costs. I'm guessing he'll be considered just another chump in a year or so.
But he's doing just that. The Blizzard merger-purchase was a good move and it's going to reflect well on their results. His "let's milk franchises" strategy will also increase profits... for five years or so. If it's true that these consoles will stick around another six or seven years before they're replaced Kotick might find Modern Warfare 7 a tough sell, but you can't make shareholders act on long term stuff like that. Like you said, they want quarter to quarter profits up right now, and with his strategy of unsustainable repetition he has a few of those left before he starts taking a visible hit in finances.