Aiemond said:
perpride said:
Aiemond - Have you once looked at Activision games sell on Sony platforms? Do you even know that he was not just talking about PS3? He was talking about dropping all support for Sony platforms. Have you once looked at how third party published games sell on the Wii? On PS3? How about the two in comparison? The gap is nowhere near how big it was back in the PS2 days. Have you ever seen the sales for Activision games on PS3? OK...I thought not.....do that...and then tell me how dreadful Sony's third place console is doing. Pretty damn god for last place if you ask me.
PS3 exclusives are going to 360 because of Wii's success. That's it. And it is not a one way damn road. Look at how many 360 exclusives have come to PS3 and then tell me that third parties are running from PS3. It sounds like you are still in early 2007 my friend. 360's highest rated exclusive EVER, Bioshock (and its forthcoming sequel), have now come/are headed to PS3. Eternal Sonata, Dead Rising 2, Lost Planet, Ninja Gaiden 2 and Tales of Vesperia are several other examples that pop straight into my mind.
Activision not developing for Sony would be a dumbfuck move on Activision's part, especially since they already have people that know how to develop for PS3 and have already put out so many games. Don't call me a fanboy then stand up for every piece of shit that is written against Sony.
|
Look, I said that he was under pressure to get ps3 titles to sell better and has enough leverage that he can get away with it.. That's why he made the comment. They would only do this is they thought the cost for porting these games excede the amount of profit they could get by allocating these funds to a different project, such as map packs, wow expansions, etc. IMO they would have to have lower sales then they do now for a port not to be economical. The exception to this rule is niche games that will sell low amounts either way. Niche games are the types that benifit from being on only one console. Now, if the ps3 had a very bad holiday season again and software sales declined then they would have a reason to pull support. Again, this is what happened to the GC. As for your comment on how the gap is not as big as it was during the ps2 days that just means that MS has had a far better generation and sony has had a far worse one. This whole paragraph makes sense untill you reach the last sentence. The gap between software sales not being big has absolutley nothing to do with the Xbox 360 doing good. It simply means that the Wii is not the third party software monster that the PS2 once was. Wii sales for third party games are just as good if not better than the 360, but the PS3, even though it is a last place console, is not trailing by much. The difference of sales between 360, PS3 AND Wii games made by activision is nowhere near the amount of sales the PS2 would have compared to the other consoles back in the sixth generation.
I am comparing this gen to last one. 360 is performing far better this gen than xbox did last gen but ps3 is performing far worse than the ps2 did. The gap is closer than it was last gen. That is bad for Sony. They were on top of the world. And, of course, the wii coming our and taking the top is not good for sony either.
You want me to tell you how dreadful the ps3 is doing? Ok.
It performed FAR below expectations.
It continues to lose money for every unit sold even at $400.
It caused Sony to go from a very very large lead during the ps2 generation to the LAST place console this generation.
It lost brand power for the Playstation name.
It lost, so far, all the money that was made during the ps1 and ps2 generations
It lost many exclusives from last generation.
You have not told me anything in this little rant paragraph. Go back and read the bolded part of my initial statement. You are pretending like this is early 2007. The points you are raising for PS3 being a failure would only be relevant if I was in here claiming the console is doing better than Wii, 360, or what people where expecting in 2006. Or if I was saying that it is going to be the first place console when this is aid and done. When you look at the bolded part, you will see that I clearly said "tell me how dreadful Sony's third place console is doing. Pretty damn good for last if you ask me". And I stay by that statement completely. The reasons you have listed here and after this point have to do with Sony not being first place. Yes, it performed lower than expected. Many people were expecting it to be the next PS2. It wasn't. Yes, they are sold at a loss. They went from first to last. But in no way did PlayStation lose its brand power. Even after all of the reasons we all know sony did not win first this gen, they are still doing far better than the third and second place console from the last generation. In fact, I'd say for a last place console, they are doing pretty fucking good. I have never seen a last place console with this many amazing exclusive games. The closest thing to this would be the Dreamcast and Sony destroyed that console both in sales and software with the PS3. The company is currently enjoying tremendous third party support. All of this is still at a pricepoint that is MUCH higher than the GC ever was. It is getting better support than other consoles last gen, but unlike nintendo they are still not making a profit :P. And, these points are relevant because they are talking about the goal of the console, which was not met and frankly was never even close to being met. If being the "best last place console" is a positive for Sony, then it just shows you how bad it is for sony this gen.
What is good? It is the most powerful? So? How is this helping it right now? It is hard to justify an exclusive for the platform that takes advantage of it because costs to do so are so high. And when you make a multiplatform game it is basically the same on both HD platforms. As for the 360 exclusives going to ps3 as well, you are right it is a two way ship. HD games are expensive to make and companies want to maximize the profit. Exactly you are completely right here. This is why the dude from Activision should go fuck himself.
The only reason that these games would stop going to both platforms are like I said earlier: companies think they can make more profit from taking the costs to port the game and applying it to other projects they think will have better returns. One example would be valve. It is very easy to port PC games to the 360 and Valve specializes in PC games. The cost to put it on the 360 is very minimal. To port it to the ps3, though, they would have to train and hire new people to focus on porting the projects. Or you pay another company to do this work. Valve prolly simply decided it would get a better return to focus those funds into different projects such as steam. But for most companies that already have ps3 staff I think it is more costs effective to just do multiplat unless software sales decline compared to what they are now (which could occur if ps3 has a bad holiday season again compared to 360 and wii). Of course another reason is fanboyism, something that is quite prevalent in the industry. When people who do not understand business are making the business decisions, this can happen. This will not happen. If this was last year or the year before I might agree with you. But PS3 has now sold enough consoles and software (and continues to) to justify practically any third party developer into going multiplatform. The cost of bringing a game to PS3 is nowhere near the amount of money you make for making the game multiplatform. Companies that have no loyalty to Sony and Microsoft will continue to suppot both games. I only said this would happen if Sony did really bad this holiday season again or if Activision decided they could make more money doing other stuff. But, with Cod it is obvious multiplatform is the right answer. Smaller projects, usually from smaller studios, will not sell as much and thus the extra cost may outwiegh the benifit of being multiplat. This is true for alot of niche games, ones that prolly will only sell 50k in a region, or maybe 100k in a region. I'll say this again though, if the holiday is bad enough and the gap increases then there is more bite to the threat.
Lastly, as for activision again, they have enough cash cows that they would be hurt less by dropping ps3 than sony would. Sony is hurting on many fronts and losing one of the biggest third parties would be a huge blow to the system that could have other publishers do the same thing. Activision knows this and that is why they feel they can make threats and comments like they did. As for your comment on me calling you a fanboy, well Sony fanboys try to make it sound like the ps3 is in a fine position and that everything attacking it is BS. There is alot of shit said that does not make sense and is untrue, but to think Sony is fine and are having no problems, and that the gaming division is perfect and doing just like it wanted is stupid. The reality is it is underperforming so badly that it has managed to lose all the moeny it has ever made. There is not good way to spin that. Trust me my friend, no console maker is hurting as badly as Sony right now. They have made a HUGE number of mistakes this gen. They also have extremely bad PR. If I had the chart that Twesterm always posts about the mistakes made before PS3 was released, you would see how many mistakes they have made in detail. But this does not in any way justify what the dude from Activision is saying. In no way do I agree that Activision pulling support from Sony would hurt Sony more than Activision. I see it as completely two-sided, something that would needlesly hurt both. PS3 pushes more than enough software to justify making games for it. Development is much easier for companies like Activision that already have teams that know how to port or create games for it. And the last point that I'd like to raise, which is also extremely important, is that this dude is talking about pulling support from Sony in general, not hte PS3. That part fully makes me realize that his is a bogus statement. It will hurt sony more. Ps3 accounts for less than 10% of the total revenue of Activision. And his rant is basically about the ps3, and perhaps the psp. They have to cut the price, because if they don’t, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow. If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony.” Ask when and he says: “When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console — and the PSP [portable] too. So why would it hurt sony more? If activision leaves, this can begin a cascade for other third parties to leave and for more people to get a 360. If they get the 360, they can still buy activision games while activision does not have to pay port costs. Now, as I said earlier, this will prolly not happen soon if at all. BUT, if the holiday season is bad enough again, and if software sales go down then it can happen. If the gap increases enough it can happen. And it would hurt Sony more.
|
