I think a lot of people are missing the point. Its not that Activision is going to go and drop PS3 support because of this comment, of course they won't.

But if the PS3 continues to fall behind, 3rd party developers may have to take a hard look at which games will be financially viable for them to make across three platforms, and how much time and money they will commit to which versions of a multi-platform title.

With comments like this, Sony is alienating Activision, but really sending a message to all 3rd party developers that they should feel lucky to develop for the PS3.

Combine these things together and I have no problem believing that This sort of attitude can lead to delayed, dropped, rushed, or sub-par PS3 versions of software being developed for the PS3.

PS3 fans who gripe about developers not using the PS3 to their full potential: This will only compound that problem.

Companies want to make money.  If they make bad games for the PS3, they will not make money to recoup their costs.

Companies are not going to suddenly decide they don't like making money and purposefully delay/drop/rush any of their titles any more than they already would because of this comment IMHO.

I am not saying this comment in particular would do that, I said that attitude toward 3rd party developers by Sony could do that.

You are right, companies are in the business of making money, and in general will not stick by something that they run the risk of losing money on without some sort of goodwill from the hardware manufacturers.

If you look at the development costs of a PS3 game vs the install base and average attach rate, you can get the idea of what sort of risk devoting a lot of time and money to a PS3 game really is.

THIS is why I say you can expect poor ports from 360 versions, ones of lower quality, missing features, or delayed or even dropped in some cases.

Companies can and will do this all the time.  Every time a company makes a game for any system they run the risk of losing money.

Exactly. So, when in that scenario, would you as a third party developer want to develop for a hardware manufacturer with a larger install base and which is more helpful toward developers,

or,

A hardware manufacturing with a smaller install base and which views you as being fortunate for being able to develop on their system

 He'll get promoted up the volcano, and Stringer is the same, he said PS3 games are infinetly more enjoyable than Wii games

I'm not going to pick on Stringer for one stupid comment amongst many intelligent ones. Tretton, on the other hand, constantly makes idiotic comments. 

Who do Activision think they are telling sony to drop their price by 200 in a year? they already dropped the price significantly and are losing money big time. I give Trenton or whatever his name is credit for standing up for himself, even though he probably should have shut up.

I don't know.  I expected more awesomeness out of a poster whose screenname resembles Hong Kong Phooey.  I suppose that isn't bad though.

There are dozens of better ways of replying to Activision's comment in a nicer way, no matter how stupid Activision's comment was in the first place.

Here's an example answer:

"We understand that third parties would like us to price our systems as low as possible, however the PS3 is an expensive piece of hardware. We'll keep looking for ways to reduce the system's price, but I don't expect reaching $199 in 2009".

See how much nicer that is? I'm sure someone in Tretton's position could find something even better.