jahheim said:
jcp234 said:
jahheim said:
@jcp and nj5: the question though is what other platforms would they put their investments towards that have higher ROI? On a big game, publishers spend $25-30mm on dev costs, $30mm marketing, and maybe $30mm inventory build (although the last is just a working cap issue), so after that point whether a game is breakeven or not and whether it is a "hit" or not is largely driven by how many units they sell (this is the video game business model). Yes they have to pay SNE some royalties but that's a variable cost. If they spend $60mm developing and marketing an FPS for example, other than 360 or PC where are they going to be able to sell the game at a premium $60 ASP? Wii premium pricing at $50 which doesnt hurt, but ATVI would never abandon potential sales to the PS3 install base unless MSFT or Nintendo was paying them for the exclusivity to make them whole or the incremental dev costs to port the game to PS3 wouldn't justify expected PS3 unit sales + royalties. I don't know for sure but my guess is that dev for PS3 and 360 is more similar than 360 and Wii given Wii's more limited hardware. this is why it doesnt make sense for bobby to leave ps3 - bc he is in the business of making money, not bc he can't |
I cannot answer your question because I am not familiar with Activisions business model and/or project forecasts.
I do not work for Activision and I am not familiar with its overhead, project processes or relationship with Nintendo or Microsoft, but I do not think I need to know those details.
The CEO of the company is communicating to us (very boldy) that unless there is a change in the market, it is considering abandoning Sony platforms to pursue projects that will potentially have a higher return on investment.
This is not coming from a marketing puppet or even a deparment head...this is coming from the CEO. I think it's pretty pretentious for any of us to challenge his competence and strategies he considers implementing for Activision...I doubt if any of us currently secure the CEO position of a major company...or even work for Activision...so what basis does anyone have to challenge his statement?
|
i dont think anyone is challenging the competence of the bobby kotick (except the person who did earlier on this thread) but it is a mistake to take everything at face value. i think he is being a good and very competent (if not very aggressive) ceo by trying to use his negotiating leverage to make sne lower their ps3 price faster than they want to. so i agree that he is very competent and knows how to run his business, i just think he's not doing it the way you think he is
|
You are right, he could be bluffing and just trying to put a little pressure on Sony (which is MOST likely, I admit)...but some of these comments pertaining to the circumstances are just ridiculous....
For instance...the notion of Sony being able to buy Activision?
My participation in this thread is simply to point out that regardless of the CEO's true intentions..It's not totally out of the realm of possibility that if market conditions do not change...Activision may be able to engage more financially beneficial projects by exercising the option to abandon Sony platforms and allocating those resources elsewhere.
