Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Activision chief: "We might have to stop supporting Sony."
- Thread starter jaw04005
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2nyRiggz
macrumors 603
I'm not going to run on with you but I will point out you're saying sales aren't everything seeing as GT series sales to date is much higher than the Halo franchise but yet you run on about the game selling out, fasting selling game to date and closing down blocks....Sales is JUST AS IMPORTANT TO A GAME AS POPULARITY.
Point taken...Halo is a success and more popular but its NOT more successful than the GT series no matter how many blocks it shuts down or records it breaks(until it beats GT in revenue generated)
The point I'm making from your 1st post is YES there is a very popular/successful game in Sony's rep and this is what its all about...making profit which they successfully pulled off with GT.
On topic: Plain and simple, Activision should mind theirs and let Sony do whats needed to make the console turn profit.
Bless
Signal-11
macrumors 65816
Huh? Why does Sony have a privileged place. Why shouldn't Sony "mind theirs" and let Activision do what is needed to turn a profit instead of letting Sony suck them dry with royalties? Because that's the flip side of the coin of the argument you're making.
Activision has every right to say something about this because their revenue stream is affected by Sony's policies.
e²Studios
macrumors 68020
All companies in this market have royalties, he makes a valid point (he meaning 2ny definatly not you). Sony's royalties are no more expensive than either of the others, and again they are using the price of the system as media fodder, and its working look at all the xbots eating this up 🙄
Signal-11
macrumors 65816
I think you're missing the point. That was a deliberately absurd example I was making.
Sony's business is Activision's business because Activision develops for the Sony platform. All business is a two way street. 🙄
Rodimus Prime
macrumors G4
I would not be surpised to see Activision walk away from Sony. Top it off Sony needs Activision a lot more than Activision needs Sony.
PS3 is not standing up as well as the 360. PS3 has no big name game that everyone knows.
360 has Halo. Wii has Mario, Zelda and Metroid.
PS3 biggest name I can think of it has is GT and to top it off GT last time I check was no longer king of the racing sims but been knock off by Fonza 2 which is a Microsoft title if that is not the case and a new GT game came out rumor is Fonza 3 is going to over take it.
PS3 is not standing up as well as the 360. PS3 has no big name game that everyone knows.
360 has Halo. Wii has Mario, Zelda and Metroid.
PS3 biggest name I can think of it has is GT and to top it off GT last time I check was no longer king of the racing sims but been knock off by Fonza 2 which is a Microsoft title if that is not the case and a new GT game came out rumor is Fonza 3 is going to over take it.
No Sony needs Activision as Activision needs Sony. Without Activision, Sony would lost a substantial amount of games. Without Sony, Activision would lose a sizable chunk of the install base thus losing on those profits. Like somebody said, its a two way street and everybody needs everybody else.
The PS3 is doing just fine. Yes a price cut would be nice and much appriciated but whatev. I'm gunna support Sony until they screw up majorly which they haven't done yet so I'm still here. Things are starting to turn around and they will continue to do so. 🙂 Sony makes great consoles with an amazing line up of games for them and they know what they are doing. Ya they've made some mistakes but what company hasn't. They are taking care of them little by little though.
zap2
macrumors 604
No, they both make out from the deal, but at the end of the day, I think Sony needs Activision more...lose the biggest software developer, lose a few would be PS3 owners, more devs don't see a strong enough return, leave the platform, less people buy...it has the ability to become a bad cycle for sony.
zap2
macrumors 604
Wait, if they did the same thing with PS1/PS2, what don't they have that they used to have?(and when did they have it)
I think a lot of people here are just missing a very simple point:
For every dollar that Activision is putting into PS3 games, they are getting a substantially lower return than they are getting for every dollar they put into the Xbox 360 or the Wii. It's that simple. The logic is kind of obvious; If they put those dollars into the other systems, they stand to make more money. This is for various reasons:
1. Developing for the Xbox and Wii is significantly cheaper than the PS3. The PS3 is a huge hassle to develop games for because of the architecture of the system. Developing for the Xbox is not much different than developing for the a PC. In fact, it's easier in many ways. Developing for the Wii is not very different from developing for the Gamecube so there is already a built in level of experience at most companies.
2. Sony charges significantly higher royalties on PS3 games, largely because the developer has to pay Blu Ray royalties on top of the actual PS3 game royalties, which are already higher than Microsoft or Nintendo's.
3. There are (very roughly) 20M PS3s sold, compared to 30M Xbox 360s and over 50M Wiis. That's substantially lower playerbase to sell your games too. before you yell "BUT THEY ARE JUST PORTING THE GAME!", look at points 1 and 2.
4. PS3 has less games sold per unit than Xbox or Wii. PS3 owners simply buy fewer games. Some of this can be chalked up to the fact that a lot of people initially bought the PS3 as a cheaper Blu Ray player, because at the time it was very cheap for a Blu Ray player.
Each one of those points may not seem too terrible, but put them all together and it adds up to a significantly lower return on investment in PS3 games compared to Wii or Xbox.
Too many people seem to be hung up on the fact that Activision IS making money on PS3 games. That doesn't matter. The important part is what the RETURN is compared to the other systems. Activision has a limited amount of money to spend developing new products. If that money is better spent making more games for the Xbox and Wii, or simply beefing up the games that they are already making, resulting in higher sales, then that is CLEARLY the smarter business decision.
To make it as simple as possible, imagine that you have three options to invest your money and all are basically riskless. Each one has a different return rate, but they will all make you money. One is going to return 5%, and the other two are going to return 10%. Would you split your money up three ways or just put more money in the two 10% investments? The answer is obvious.
If Activision can make more money by putting their PS3 money into Xbox 360 and Wii, that's what they will do, period. You can fanboy it up all day, but this isn't about which system has games you like better. This is about what makes Activision money.
For every dollar that Activision is putting into PS3 games, they are getting a substantially lower return than they are getting for every dollar they put into the Xbox 360 or the Wii. It's that simple. The logic is kind of obvious; If they put those dollars into the other systems, they stand to make more money. This is for various reasons:
1. Developing for the Xbox and Wii is significantly cheaper than the PS3. The PS3 is a huge hassle to develop games for because of the architecture of the system. Developing for the Xbox is not much different than developing for the a PC. In fact, it's easier in many ways. Developing for the Wii is not very different from developing for the Gamecube so there is already a built in level of experience at most companies.
2. Sony charges significantly higher royalties on PS3 games, largely because the developer has to pay Blu Ray royalties on top of the actual PS3 game royalties, which are already higher than Microsoft or Nintendo's.
3. There are (very roughly) 20M PS3s sold, compared to 30M Xbox 360s and over 50M Wiis. That's substantially lower playerbase to sell your games too. before you yell "BUT THEY ARE JUST PORTING THE GAME!", look at points 1 and 2.
4. PS3 has less games sold per unit than Xbox or Wii. PS3 owners simply buy fewer games. Some of this can be chalked up to the fact that a lot of people initially bought the PS3 as a cheaper Blu Ray player, because at the time it was very cheap for a Blu Ray player.
Each one of those points may not seem too terrible, but put them all together and it adds up to a significantly lower return on investment in PS3 games compared to Wii or Xbox.
Too many people seem to be hung up on the fact that Activision IS making money on PS3 games. That doesn't matter. The important part is what the RETURN is compared to the other systems. Activision has a limited amount of money to spend developing new products. If that money is better spent making more games for the Xbox and Wii, or simply beefing up the games that they are already making, resulting in higher sales, then that is CLEARLY the smarter business decision.
To make it as simple as possible, imagine that you have three options to invest your money and all are basically riskless. Each one has a different return rate, but they will all make you money. One is going to return 5%, and the other two are going to return 10%. Would you split your money up three ways or just put more money in the two 10% investments? The answer is obvious.
If Activision can make more money by putting their PS3 money into Xbox 360 and Wii, that's what they will do, period. You can fanboy it up all day, but this isn't about which system has games you like better. This is about what makes Activision money.
e²Studios
macrumors 68020
I think you are missing the whole point, as well the whole reason they made this in to a public act. Prove every single one of those accusations, you can't.. (media fodder isnt proof, kid)
Honestly you have no sense of what this industry is about and how it operates, I would stop now before you dig yourself deeper in that slippery hole you've already built yourself.
ezekielrage_99
macrumors 68040
It's simple ROI, if Activision can't leverage a decent profit from the PS3 games then it's logical for them to stop supporting the system. It wont matter how many PS3s there are out there... Think VHS vs Beta.
But I really thinks it's a power play on the part of Activision to get action from other suppliers and Sony themselves to make the system either more successfully viable or for lowering the price.
But I really thinks it's a power play on the part of Activision to get action from other suppliers and Sony themselves to make the system either more successfully viable or for lowering the price.
ezekielrage_99
macrumors 68040
I recently bought an XBOX360, after weighting up the pros and cons I settled on a XBOX360 elite with Fable2, GoW2, Halo3 (sorry just don't get the fuss here...) and Assassin's Creed for $AUD499 @ JBHifi. There would be no way I could get a PS3 with 4 games for under $AUD700.
I work in the QA department for a major studio. Don't tell me I don't know how this industry operates. Now, frankly, I don't give a damn whether you are just a random guy, a producer, an engineer, or just some little entry-level QA punk who now thinks he is "in the industry", because none of that really matters in the end. If I worked at a burger place, I could still use the most basic levels of common sense to understand this issue.
1. Anyone even remotely familiar with console development knows how incredibly hard to take of the SPU in the PS3 is and how poorly designed the memory s advantage tructure is. This is common knowledge. If you are as knowledgeable of the game industry as your absurdly smug and condescending post infers, then you know this already.
2. Call me naive, but I simply don't expect CEOs to publicly state that the royalties are significantly higher and give numbers if it isn't true. I could MAYBE buy that he lied IF Sony called him on it afterward... but they didn't, which indicates to me that he was 100% telling the truth. If Sony can't be bothered to refute the numbers, then I'm not going to question it.
3. Here are the worldwide console sales numbers, which is almost exactly what I said they are:
http://www.vgchartz.com/?gr_i_ni
4. The Wii has around 6 games sold per unit, the Xbox has around 8 games sold per unit, and the PS3 has around 6 sold per unit. So yes, you are correct that the Wii and the PS3 are close, but the Xbox clearly crushes the PS3 in this regard. Once again, you can get these numbers here:
http://www.vgchartz.com/?gr_i_ni
Did you mean you don't realize why Halo 3 is so good?
Did you have an xbox, halo and halo 2? That is why I love halo because of the story line that has developed over the past games. There are not many games that i can play the campaign over and over again but i do with halo.
Also do you have xbox live? No matter how many games I buy i always end up turning back to Halo 3 for online multiplayer. IMO no other game can match it.
If you don't have xbox live i would serioulsy consider getting it, the xbox 360 is built around it and it would be a waste to have one without live.
(anyone with live who wants to hit up halo 3? my GT is HazzaHJ)
Sorry, to turn this into why Halo rules but when halo is involved i just have to give my opinion.
.
.
.
Also I hope Activision does drop sony just so they make xbox games that much better (and give us another reason why xbox is better then PS).
sikkinixx
macrumors 68020
0098386
Suspended
Halo? You mean this game?
No other game can match it? Wow.
Wow.
No I don't mean World of Warcraft.
I actually have nothing against PS3 and would like one but don't find it necessary as IMO they have no games that I would like that I can't get on xbox.
In my last post i was just trying to find out why ezekielrage_99 didn't find halo good? no need to throw insults around. Their just my opinions.
yeh, thats not me.
Actually the xbox was my first console and halo my first game so this is kinda true. 😱 But even the biggest halo haters have got to admit it is an incredibly successful game.
In my last post i was just trying to find out why ezekielrage_99 didn't find halo good? no need to throw insults around. Their just my opinions.
2nyRiggz
macrumors 603
This is why you got the response you didn't want....I mean seriously dude thats like the height of fanboyism(also the pictures Sikkinixx posted, damn man I didn't know it gets that bad.)
Play the games not the console.
Bless
Ah... ok.
I'm not really a fanboy... i hope, maybe if i said this instead:
If Activision does drop sony then that would play an important role when people are debating which console to buy.??
Antares
macrumors 68000
This makes a lot of sense, then, about your response and opinion. Our first experience with something good is often our fondest memory. It becomes a nostalgic thing. Whether or not that thing truly deserves the pedestal that it gets put it on, is up for question.
The first Halo was a good game. The later games, not so much.
The Activision thing is just a lot of hot air.