Even the bad games are doing far worse on the 360, I've addressed the bundled issue with the previous post, the 360 attach rate is 37% higher than the PS3 without the bundles.

GH3 - Release simultaneously (might be confusing with GH2 which I did not include)

CoD 3 - PS3 port was released two weeks after 360 version. Europe version released PS3 launch day. In both cases it had the advantage of being a launch title

And your right, Activision can't expect the same games to have similar attachment rates. Which is probably why they want a pricecut. They want the PS3 market to open up to gamers.

Just to add to gebx's point for argument's sake ...

Although some of those games were bundled Activision would still have received money from Microsoft (or the retailer who bundled the game) which would result in Activision's books showing Microsoft was a platform with far higher sales of the same game. While we don't know for sure, it is rumored that Microsoft's licencing fees (and charges for downloadable content) are lower than Sony's which could translate into higher revenue generated per unit sold.

When you combine payments for bundling games, higher unit sales, and higher revenues per game sold it is entirely possible that Microsoft's portion of revenue for HD console sales is dominant enough to question the value in producing a PS3 version; in particular when you are talking about games with lower sales where the revenue generated from the games' sales barely cover the porting cost.

No, I wasn't confused by you not including GH2, but this example goes back to what I said with certain games for certain markets. GH is generally much bigger in America compared to Europe, so american sales of GH3 on the PS3 will have taken quite a hit from the PS3 being almost only a 4th of the install size of the 360 when the game launched.

And I wonder how CoD3 did such poor numbers compared to Resistance (although I realize Resistance was bundled, but it can't have been that bundled).

And I know they want a pricecut to help their games sell better, every single person with a hand in creating HD console games want a pricecut for the PS3 for the same reason, but I find it weird that this complaint comes from Activision when it's generally the same games that sell well on both platforms, the 360 versions just sell a lot more when totalled up. Why history channel games are even made in the first place is something I find astounding...

That list is SO broken. Kung Fu Panda, Lego Indy, and Marvel were heavily bundled. CoD3 was a launch PS3 game, and then everything below, barring Prototype just sucked. Unless you're trying to prove that 360 owners buy a lot more crap games than PS3 owners

You should of read the whole thread before posting, all your points have already been mentioned and replied too

And the point is that if gamers don't buy games  (crappy or not), than developers will move to another console.

"Out of the 30 or so games published by Activision for the PS3, only ONE game passed 4 million, the next drops to 1.9 million"

There's only one game on that list that I wanted and bought, COD4, the rest is garbage! So he is complaining the PS3 users aren't buying his garbage as much as the xbox folks, so what? Maybe PS3 users have better taste. Sorry activision, i'm not interested in buying Cabela's Monster Bass. Here's what we are buying:

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&keyword=&console=PS3&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Sales

Compare lists, which games would you rather play, activsion's or all the rest? Activision- the sad fact is besides a few good games, your selection sucks. That's the problem, not that PS3 users aren't buying your games that suck.

I just have one question regaurding the bundled games fr the 360 that sold millions more because of bundles.  And that question is this.

Doesn't MS still pay Activision for thsoe bundled games?? if so that would still mean activision got way more profit for those games on the 360 then on the PS3.  And if thats true the bundles argument is moot.

That's an interesting idea.  You are not the only poster to say something similar in the thread either.  I think you would have appreaciated the libraries of the N64 and Gamecube.  Very little shovelware as compared to their contemporaries.

@gebx

The numbers are definitely in X360's favour, but you have to take into account that some of the games, Lego Indiana Jones, Marvell and Kung fu wouldn't be so high up without the x360 bundles so that skews the results a bit. There is also another factor to take into consideration, and I'm not sure how many Activision games this applies to, but games like COD3 came out when the x360 had 4x the user base of the PS3 (approx 9 mil to 2 mil) so of course more would sell on x360. The PS3 is also missing some numbers from Others which the x360 has, like Spiderman 3. And finally, all Activision games seem to be bigger in America, where x360 has a definite advantage.

So yes, I do agree with you, but perhaps if Activision made games that appealed to Euro gamers the attach rate might be higher for the PS3.

The point here is future expectation, because unless MS choose to bundle another activision game, the product cannot be use to measure sale trend. And considering this entire thread is about PS3 development viability as compared to the 360, that's a very important point. Those game cannot set standard for future games Activision publishes unless MS opens the wallet and do another deal.

Have a look at the more recent Activision game and you'll see that they generally fall into the 3:2 ratio of sale if there is no external influence.

Of course, this doesn't account for MS's deep pocket, but I'd imagine that its in Activision's best interest to continue to develop for the PS3. Without the PS3, MS might not be as generous anymore ;)