Activision is bluffing. For PS3 at any rate. No way they'd lose 5m sales on the next CoD or even 2m on GH. Now PSP/PS2... That's a different story.

Can u sub divide the list between the games launched before January 1, 2008 and after January 1, 2008. And see wots the trend of XBOX360 and PS3 sales..

The Wii is unrelated to the topic. So it seems the Activison sells about two 360 titles for everyone one PS3 game. I think the Activision is just posturing right now to be honest. PS3 sales are high enough to warrant continued support. I know the PS3's dev cost are higher but not "lets throw away 33% of our HD software sales" high.

Just to point out, many of those were released later on PS3 than 360

Anyway, they are definitely not going to throw away the possible $100m from Modern Warfare 2...

What he said is that if there was no price cut by like 2011, then they might consider it.. it is not a serious threat, just poking Sony

I think it would be more beneficial to put PS3, PSP, 360, Wii, and DS as that is what they were referring to.

I wonder what there return on sales is for each platform (I'm sure it varies by game)...

Conjecture I know, but if generally speaking they make less money per unit sale on the PS3 (if development/licensing cost are more) then I could see why they would desire more PS3 unit sales to offset that.

That being said, I absolutely have NO expectation that Activision would follow through with that threat.

No even if it costs a lot to dev for the ps3 they still get great sales, the ps2 and psp are other stories.

While, as everyone knows, this is saber-rattling and so on and so forth BUT....

If you want to compare game revenue on the console's, which is what he is most interested in, you can't just look at sales.

Keep in mind the following:

"It's expensive to develop for the console"

"Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation."

...his company paid $500 million to Sony in royalties and other goods last year...

"the attach rates are likely to slow"

And remember, this is a guy who wants every dollar he spends to return as much as possible. Hell the man has infamous statements attributed to him about exploiting brands.

The fact of the matter is this: the guy doesn't want $1 -> $2, he wants $1 -> $3. If it's possible for him to turn $1 -> $3 on the 360, then why waste resources turning $1 into $2. Why not divert all his resources to the 360. Those resources can either a) produce more titles which turn $1-> $3 or b) produce titles faster which $1 -> $3.

I know a lot of people are saying he profits from the PS3, but let's put it this way; Say you mow lawns. You've been cutting lawns in your neighborhood for a few years now. They pay you well, about $20.00 per yard. However, you started mowing lawns in a new neighborhood which pays you $25.00 per yard. Now you could a) continue mowing those lawns in your neighborhood even though you do not make as much, b) ask your clients in your neighborhood to pay you more, or c) invest all your time mowing lawns in the new neighborhood for $25.

Most people would choose B and then move on to C...

that's what Activision is doing.

Activision doesn't want to keep paying Sony more per game in royalties than it does for the 360 and on top of that for a console that doesn't even sell as many games. They will continue to do so, don't get me wrong, but I'm sorry Bobby will keep running his mouth until Sony lowers those royalties they've been charging.

Remember:
...his company paid $500 million to Sony in royalties and other goods last year...
and
"Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation."

who talked about droping PS2???

thread fail....

It recently game out.