By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Activision threatens to "stop supporting" Sony consoles.

jcp234 on 19 June 2009
jahheim said:
@jcp, i know you don't know the production costs/overhead of the publishers, but just thinking broadly about the major cost inputs, a publisher doesn't really free up that much resources by deciding not to port to a particular platform, and definitely not enough to create a new title (you're saying they're going to create 2x the games for the price of 1?). also which titles are you referring to that are inferior on the ps3?

in terms of resources, atvi has $3bn of cash and $0 debt, so its not exactly like they are constrained here - as you mentioned before companies are in the business of maximizing profits, and bobby is a competent ceo - if there was good use for that cash to earn a better return vs sitting on their balance sheet, wouldn't they have done it already? no need for them to get cute and cut porting to one platform to save some incremental porting costs..

A company uses its resources to target the most financially beneficial projects. Regardless of how excessive Activision's resources are, it should always allocate those resources to projects that will have the greatest return on investment.

I think we also should consider where developers expected the PS3 to be in the market prior to its release and reality.

I feel pretty confident saying that most developers invested a lot of resources into Sony's third generation console prior to its release...expecting the PS3 to bank off of the marketing dominance of the PS2...

Companies have had resources tied into PS3 products even before its release. Even after its release, it had been speculated that the PS3 would make this amazing comeback and secure the #1 position in the console market. Different players in the gaming industry expected the PS3 to eventually take the spot at the top...even after its lackluster performance upon release to the market, which may explain why some developers have continued to support the platform....Hypothetically speaking, maybe Activision is realising that the PS3 isn't going to have that miracle turn around that will result in a first place position for the PS3? Of course, this is all hypothetical....There have always been really high expectations for the PS3 because of the amazing performance of the PS2.

 

Like I said, there are many details I do not know, so I cannot accommodate all of your inquiries. I do not work for Activision.

 

 



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

Around the Network
Tbone on 19 June 2009

Its pretty strange because there are smaller publishers and they sell half of the games Activision does and probably losing money too and they dont go out and say this.

Looks like Activision just wanna show how "big they are "



 

JEDE3 on 19 June 2009

"A company uses its resources to target the most financially beneficial projects. Regardless of how excessive Activision's resources are, it should always allocate those resources to projects that will have the greatest return on investment."

And everything about that points to keep on supporting PS3.

What would they do? Spend more money 360 development? That wouldn't bring in more profit but in actuality less profit since it most likely wouldnt bring in more sales then theyd lose.

Spend the money on a new game? I'm sure activision knows that there is nothing to say that the game would sell as much as not making a Ps3 CoD. On op of it being more expensive.

Make more than one CoD/GH for the 360 a year?

Save it and not do anything?



jcp234 on 19 June 2009
Tbone said:
Its pretty strange because there are smaller publishers and they sell half of the games Activision does and probably losing money too and they dont go out and say this.

Looks like Activision just wanna show how "big they are "

Smaller devs/publishers may have been hoping to establish better relationships with Sony or other factors may be at hand...

Because most companies to not want to lose money on purpose. This also may explain why those publishers/developers are smaller and Activision is huge.

Activision does not necessarily need its relationship with Sony...as long as Nintendo and Microsoft hold the first and second place positions, respectively.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

jahheim on 19 June 2009

i know, just nice to discuss these things with you. in terms of ps3 becoming dominant in the end i think it will be all about price.. as an extreme hypothetical example, if they were to cut prices to $50 they would become the #1 console overnight (pending hardware inventory constraints). in terms of the hardware itself there's no arguing its superior performance (blu-ray is a separate argument). everyone knows prices will come down at some point in the future, just a matter of who acts first, how the others respond, and when

maybe a more relevant, or at least more interesting, discussion to have is which console you'd choose if they all cost the same, both as standalone systems and then considering relevant game titles



Around the Network
Tbone on 19 June 2009
jcp234 said:
Tbone said:
Its pretty strange because there are smaller publishers and they sell half of the games Activision does and probably losing money too and they dont go out and say this.

Looks like Activision just wanna show how "big they are "

Smaller devs/publishers may have been hoping to establish better relationships with Sony or other factors may be at hand...

Because most companies to not want to lose money on purpose. This also may explain why those publishers/developers are smaller and Activision is huge.

Activision does not necessarily need its relationship with Sony...as long as Nintendo and Microsoft hold the first and second place positions, respectively.


Good point, but i guess the smaller devs/publisher gotta think twice about it aswell.



 

jcp234 on 19 June 2009
JEDE3 said:

"A company uses its resources to target the most financially beneficial projects. Regardless of how excessive Activision's resources are, it should always allocate those resources to projects that will have the greatest return on investment."

And everything about that points to keep on supporting PS3.

What would they do? Spend more money 360 development? That wouldn't bring in more profit but in actuality less profit since it most likely wouldnt bring in more sales then theyd lose.

Spend the money on a new game? I'm sure activision knows that there is nothing to say that the game would sell as much as not making a Ps3 CoD. On op of it being more expensive.

Make more than one CoD/GH for the 360 a year?

Save it and not do anything?

What about that points to cotinuing to support the PS3?

Just because you are not aware of better uses for the resources does not mean it does not exist.

Activision pays educated members of its team to handle these decisions.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

JEDE3 on 19 June 2009
jcp234 said:
JEDE3 said:

"A company uses its resources to target the most financially beneficial projects. Regardless of how excessive Activision's resources are, it should always allocate those resources to projects that will have the greatest return on investment."

And everything about that points to keep on supporting PS3.

What would they do? Spend more money 360 development? That wouldn't bring in more profit but in actuality less profit since it most likely wouldnt bring in more sales then theyd lose.

Spend the money on a new game? I'm sure activision knows that there is nothing to say that the game would sell as much as not making a Ps3 CoD. On op of it being more expensive.

Make more than one CoD/GH for the 360 a year?

Save it and not do anything?

What about that points to cotinuing to support the PS3?

Just because you are not aware of better uses for the resources does not mean it does not exist.

Activision pays educated members of its team to handle these decisions.


All of those solutions are worse than supporting the Ps3. So unless you can think of another idea to use their resources for than I'm all for a listen.



jcp234 on 19 June 2009
JEDE3 said:
jcp234 said:
JEDE3 said:

"A company uses its resources to target the most financially beneficial projects. Regardless of how excessive Activision's resources are, it should always allocate those resources to projects that will have the greatest return on investment."

And everything about that points to keep on supporting PS3.

What would they do? Spend more money 360 development? That wouldn't bring in more profit but in actuality less profit since it most likely wouldnt bring in more sales then theyd lose.

Spend the money on a new game? I'm sure activision knows that there is nothing to say that the game would sell as much as not making a Ps3 CoD. On op of it being more expensive.

Make more than one CoD/GH for the 360 a year?

Save it and not do anything?

What about that points to cotinuing to support the PS3?

Just because you are not aware of better uses for the resources does not mean it does not exist.

Activision pays educated members of its team to handle these decisions.


All of those solutions are worse than supporting the Ps3. So unless you can think of another idea to use their resources for than I'm all for a listen.

Maybe you should reread my response to you.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

luisgvm on 19 June 2009

i dont know. for me this doesnt make any sense. and if i am correct isnt the ps3 being outsold by the 360 for only 10 to 20k during the lasts weeks? i mean is not like the ps3 is selling so much less. maybe they are just traying to pressure SONY to cut the price?.