SCEA Responds to Activision (Not the "no response" from SCEE) Pimp slap !

[RVDondaPC]

HappySqurriel said:

RVDondaPC said:
Activision will never stop supporting the PS3 because if the CEO does that then he will be out of a job. Vivendi would not appreciate it if he cuts off a giant revenue stream that is the sony platforms. Infact this CEO could even lose favor just because he has a big mouth. The guy may be the CEO, but he doesn't have absolute power. Shareholders and Vivendi which has a controlling stake in Activision hold the fate of his future in their hands.

Also Modern Warfare and Guitar hero has such a big following it could potential lure people to whatever platform still has them. However Activision makes a shit load of licensed games from mostly movies that don't have a strong enough lure to get people to follow them so therefore they will lose out on all that revenue. Further more Activision would probably no longer get these contracts from all these movies and other IP because they don't support the PS3. So not only would they lose out on the PS3 sales from all games but they would also lose out on games like Shrek, Wolverine, Spider Man, Transformers, etc. across all platforms. If Activision stop supporting Sony their console revenue stream would be reduced to about 30% of what it is.

Activision doesn't have any pull with Sony at this point. Yes they can really hurt Sony but would be killing them self in the process. Vivendi knows this and would never let this talk go further than it already has.

First off ...

The revenue from Sony platforms doesn't matter, all that matters is the profit generated and the return on investment. If a company is spending $10 to make $5 on a platform, or they can get double the return for investing the same money on another platform, then they have nothing to worry about from losing the revenue from dropping a platform. I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is more complicated than simply looking at the revenue generated.

Now, you may not hear about people buying a videogame console to play cheap licenced games but they do have an impact on the system that ends up being bought. While most people imagine the "Man of the house" as having the power to buy the toys he wants for himself, quite often devices like game consoles are bought with a consideration of how the entire family can get use out of it. A system that has "poor quality" licenced games targeting everyone is a much easier sell in most households than a system that is full of high quality games targeting teenage boys and men.

 

Are you trying to give me a lecture on finance or are you adressing the situation? It doesn't matter what you call it, we don't know the numbers all we know is that it is a giant revenue stream. And yes revenue streams are very important, not just profits. Revenue streams are an indication of long term profitability while profit is just a short term indicator. But that is all besides the point. The potential profitability that Activision would have without supporting Sony is much lower than with it supporting Sony. 

As for your second point, it doesn't really matter because Activision doesn't own those licensed games IP's. So they wont get to make the games if they don't support Sony because it would be lost revenue for the licensees so they would just look for THQ or EA or Take-Two to license their games instead of Activision. Even if activision still published the games for the 360/Wii they would probably just get Sony to publish the games for the sony platforms and that would just be increased revenue for Sony.