Haha is that the only thing you can say to my post.  Pretty desperate.  Read a post, OH no can't respond there's language, or at least that'll be my excuse from continuing a debate.  Please give me a break.  This is 2007, not 1940's.  I will argue in the manner I best see fit, but I will not throw out personal insults to the opponent of my arguement.  3rd parties though will just have to deal with it like you.

If you can't deal with it, then that shows a lack of debating skills, a lack of want to be in the debate in the first place, or my favorite a desperate attempt to flip the arguement another way for lack thereof of a proceeding response.  Choose one as it doesn't matter to me.

Otherwise I'll continue in the manner I see fit, and you'll jsut damn well have to deal with it or go complain about it to someone else.  

Anyways to the better part of your post jhlennon, I don't think Activision is worrying about being the top 3rd party support that much. AS long as they are making money, where they stand in that perspective is not going to affect them very much. Not to mention with Blizzard on their side now, it'll be pretty hard for EA to compete, not to mention Ubisoft.

I'm sure they'll continue PS3, PS2, and PSP support but if things don't go their way on the platform then they'll allocate development accordingly. They are looking to make money, and they'll do whatever it takes to make money. If big name games aren't selling on it do to limited userbase, then they won't put them out there. they'll only give them multiplatform games that are essentially no risk.

Now if Activision made their own hardware, of course they'd see how hard it is, but I don't think its in Sony's right to say our job is harder card. They need to respect their 3rd parties, not try and and put a superiority card on them. It didn't work for Nintendo, so I don't think it'll work for Sony.

I've already answered your post. Activision won't limit support because they want to remain no1 publisher and they can't do that by just making 360/Wii games...

COD4 on the PS3 is making them money though. I think their comment is out of place because Sony are dropping the price like crazy is it is and taking losses out the ass as a result. Yet they still stand on their high ass pedestal and ask for more. It's not practical. Sony cannot take a billion dollar loss every quarter just to apease Activision and Activision should know this.

 Then why did you post it again if it was already answered.  Hesitant to stand strong against your previous opinino I see.  

And they will limit support if they aren't making money.  YOu can't retain top publisher if you don't make money, more so than just game sales.  Cause that is just a number of DVD cases.  The money behind it is what makes you top publisher.  

LIke all publishers they allocate support on where they see they can make the most money.  They'll take risks with huge development exclusives, but not usually.  Only if they think they can get money back in return.  This is why you rarely see companies like Activision, Ubisoft, or EA do exclusives cause just ain't worth it.

Luckily for PS3, support probably won't be limited as most games on PS3 will also be on 360 and PC, making the risk almost unnoticeable.  But on the down side, you won't see too many games that optimize the PS3 fully like it should.  Saddening really.  But it's a business and money is always always before quality. 

Activision don't make games that take advantage of PS3 hardware. S-E?Konami are doing that with their respective exclusive games and as a result they will be beyond awesome games.

Just when you think Sony has learned their lesson about arrogance, lol, its like someone giving you good advice and you tell them off, lol, yeah activision won't drop support, but Sony better wath themsleves, timed delays can be very detrimental to sales, especially for a company in third place

They do. By a wide margin, in fact. They also spend a great deal more money on game development than Nintendo does.

As to the original topic: does anyone think this will actually have any serious consequences? Because I think Activision needs Sony and Sony needs Activision, and regardless of some rather embarrasing faux pas, I can't imagine this actually having an effect on corporate policies or planning on either side. Other than not liking each other very much, I sincerely doubt we won't see CoD5 on the PS3, unless Activision decides they'd rather skip on 700k+ software sales just to prove a point.  

Can we finally get Sony to stuff a sock in Tretton's mouth?

I'll take this opportunity to again offer Sony my services as a PR hack. I know I have no formal training, and I dislike Sony and hate the PS3, but if given the chance I will make Sony's PR infinitely more effective and infinitely less buffoonish. Especially given that I will do it for less than half of what they pay Tretton the value added to Sony's PR would be infinite. Sony should seriously consider how great that will work as a lead into fessing up to the fact that they won't be shipping or selling or whatever 11 million PS3's this year.