Malstrom: "3rd parties are very arrogant nowadays".

[TripleMMM]

deadt0m said:
In a sense, I agree, but there are also some problems with this argument.

For one thing, Activision didn't demand that Sony go in the red for their benefit. Sony was in the red to begin with, through no fault of Activision's. For another, if it wasn't for Activision putting out some of the best-selling games on the PS3, Sony would be even further in the red than they already are.

I also think it's sort of off-base to say that third parties require the console manufacturers. I mean, clearly they need SOMEONE to make consoles for them to develop for, but that doesn't mean they have to kowtow to every console maker. I'm sure Activision's threat was hollow, but the whole reasoning behind it is that, if they are to be believed, they are making extremely narrow profits off of PS3 software sales. Considering that they clean up on sales on 360 and Wii, Sony needs Activision about 10x more than Activision needs Sony.

Nintendo is a whole different case, since their fanbase seems to only buy the games specifically designed to show off the Wiimote and first party games. While there are some high-selling third party titles, Nintendo is able to dictate to third parties because they don't need them. All of their best-selling software is first party. Sony does not have that luxury. Their first party software sales are mediocre at best, and are routinely outsold by third party multiplats. That being the case, they would be wise to listen to third party devs who are keeping their gaming division afloat.

Ditto

And what H_A said.

On a side note: H_A.., H.K... Hmm, sounds like Alien vs. Terminator... XD