Activision Threatens to Drop PS3 Support

[BloodSquirrel]

Seriously, I don't think Activision can truly afford to ignore almost 25% of the console market.

Sure they can. Especially if it makes development 25% cheaper. ESPECIALLY when you consider that they have the PC market as well.

What it comes down to is "Will we make more money releasing more games on PC and 360 or fewer games on PC 360 and PS3". If it came to the former, they'd drop support.

 

[Drakulla]

Activision is only saying this because they are dropping peripherals for Tony Hawk's Ride and DJ Hero that are probably going to be expensive. That's the only reason they want a price drop. Having to drop $400 plus an extra $150 to $200 for an Activision title with peripheral is a deal breaker for most people.

Activisions business decisions lately haven't been all that stellar. After dropping Brutal Legends and Ghostbusters, then suing Tim Schafer and now demanding a PS3 price drop or they'll drop PS3 support doesn't give me confidence in their decision making ability.

 

[RollForInitiative]

Yep, especially when Sony has over 8-10 million less units out there. Activision must cap development for a system with such a low install base. /sarcasm end

The number of units out there is precisely why their attach rate is considered to be so poor. This will explain it a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attach_rate

Seriously, I don't think Activision can truly afford to ignore almost 25% of the console market.

Plenty of developers ignore that market sector due to the lack of profitability. Really, as long as Activision is pulling in the WoW dollar they can get away with saying a lot. Would they withdraw their flagship titles that they know they can move in bulk? Doubtful. It just means they'll start pulling smaller titles that don't have a guaranteed sellthrough.

Sounds to me like they want to predict demand something which is going to happen anyway this year and then pat themselves on the shoulder for having achieved it.

I've got no reason to argue against that.

Btw. development cost on PS3 is not much more than on the 360 if your staff is familiar with the architecture (which one should be able to presume after several years of availability now). What makes it expensive is to port an existing engine over without loosing too much performance.

Familiar or not, it's a more time consuming architecture for us to work with and time is money, especially[/ in this industry. Even the development kits cost an order of magnitude more than the kits for either the Wii, DS, or Xbox 360. Properly outfitting a sizable team for a PS3 title costs a small fortune for the kits alone.

You're quite right that porting is also expensive, both ways. Moving from a PS3 architecture to anything else or vice-versa is a monster. That makes it easier to stay as an exclusive to the system, but the low attach rate makes that unfeasible. It's safer to release multiplatform or go exclusive for something else.

What I'd be curious to know about is the royalty comparison between the three gaming leviathans. That's one set of numbers I've yet to come across.

But as Activision is talking about games that shall come out in 2 years, it can't be much of an issue as they can plan the design ahead to have it run on both systems.

Games are rarely developed ground-up for more than one system, and, in my experience, the porting process typically starts quite late in development. Nobody thinks much about it prior to that.

By no means am I defending Activision here. I just like to play devil's advocate since I see things from a different vantage point.

 

[dnadns]

Seriously, I don't think Activision can truly afford to ignore almost 25% of the console market.

Sure they can. Especially if it makes development 25% cheaper. ESPECIALLY when you consider that they have the PC market as well.

What it comes down to is "Will we make more money releasing more games on PC and 360 or fewer games on PC 360 and PS3". If it came to the former, they'd drop support.

But think about it, do you really expect development costs to shrink 25% by that? A lot of work that needs to be done is actually happening for both consoles (think about artists, modeler, scripts, etc.). The major difference between the platforms is the core engine and beta-testing. There were some slides available on the net that actually showed some developers how they can prepare a game engine from the start to switch between 360/PS3 version easily.

Doesn't sound like 25% more cost to me, especially as things like shipment etc. tend to get cheaper at higher rates.

EDIT: just saw your reply now RollForInitiative, I was looking for the slides mentioned while typing, but couldn't find the link anymore

 

[Zenn3k]

Yet another reason why I am still happy I have never purchased a PS3

 

[Hazy]

Oh no! We'll lose great classics like.. Uhh.. Call of Duty WAW and COD 3.
Seriously, Activision has the Guitar Hero francise, but thats about it.
Not to mention their Call of Duty's are much more mediocre compared to Infinity Ward, and World at War has proven this.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

But think about it, do you really expect development costs to shrink 25% by that? A lot of work that needs to be done is actually happening for both consoles (think about artists, modeler, scripts, etc.). The major difference between the platforms is the core engine and beta-testing. There were some slides available on the net that actually showed some developers how they can prepare a game engine from the start to switch between 360/PS3 version easily.

Doesn't sound like 25% more cost to me, especially as things like shipment etc. tend to get cheaper at higher rates.

The PS3 is the most difficult console to develop for. If you've got a game running on the PS3, porting over to the 360 and PC isn't that hard, but it's even easier to just start with the PC and 360 and not worry about the PS3.

If the PS3 is your "lowest common denominator" platform, then it can hold up development for the other two platforms. For a game like Guitar Hero that isn't exactly pushing system limitations it's not a big deal, but for a game like CoD? Getting it to run on an extra platform means either A) Trimming things down to fit that platform's limitations or B) Spending a lot of time and money optimizing and tweaking the system to cram the full product in there.

Not only that, but consider this: If you make the game available for PC/360, then part of the PS3's install base is redundant anyway. Some people have both a PS3 and a 360. Some PS3 owners have PCs (If Sony fanboys are to be believed, there isn't a single PS3 owner out there who doesn't have a full-blown gamer rig to make the 360's "console exclusives" irrelevant).

Also, the publishers' shipping/printing operations are already at the point where economy of scale has yielded it's maximum benefit.

 

[dnadns]

Yep, especially when Sony has over 8-10 million less units out there. Activision must cap development for a system with such a low install base. /sarcasm end

The number of units out there is precisely why their attach rate is considered to be so poor. This will explain it a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attach_rate

Well, but that comes from a point of view that just looks at unit numbers as of now, ignoring the fact that the 360 has been around a bit longer (hence the /sarcasm). From that point of view, Activision must have concluded in the past that the 360 is not profitable, too, when the install base was around the number the PS3 is now.

Seriously, I don't think Activision can truly afford to ignore almost 25% of the console market.

Plenty of developers ignore that market sector due to the lack of profitability. Really, as long as Activision is pulling in the WoW dollar they can get away with saying a lot. Would they withdraw their flagship titles that they know they can move in bulk? Doubtful. It just means they'll start pulling smaller titles that don't have a guaranteed sellthrough.

Well, hard to argue that without knowing about some numbers on their side. On the other hand, Activision seemed to drop the ball on a couple occasions when then let Brütal Legend and others go, just to realize their error afterwards. Kind of leaves you wondering what they would consider a "smaller" title.

Btw. development cost on PS3 is not much more than on the 360 if your staff is familiar with the architecture (which one should be able to presume after several years of availability now). What makes it expensive is to port an existing engine over without loosing too much performance.

Familiar or not, it's a more time consuming architecture for us to work with and time is money, especially[/ in this industry. Even the development kits cost an order of magnitude more than the kits for either the Wii, DS, or Xbox 360. Properly outfitting a sizable team for a PS3 title costs a small fortune for the kits alone.

You're quite right that porting is also expensive, both ways. Moving from a PS3 architecture to anything else or vice-versa is a monster. That makes it easier to stay as an exclusive to the system, but the low attach rate makes that unfeasible. It's safer to release multiplatform or go exclusive for something else.

What I'd be curious to know about is the royalty comparison between the three gaming leviathans. That's one set of numbers I've yet to come across.

I'm afraid that it will get even harder as we don't know if and how they are cross-selling their products internally. Could be that Sony decided to go for an unprofitable PS3 anyway as long as Blu-Ray wins the format war. On the other hand, it seems to be profitable enough for Sony's 1st party studios which seem to be able to survive quite well despite focusing on the console with the lower install base.

But as Activision is talking about games that shall come out in 2 years, it can't be much of an issue as they can plan the design ahead to have it run on both systems.

Games are rarely developed ground-up for more than one system, and, in my experience, the porting process typically starts quite late in development. Nobody thinks much about it prior to that.

By no means am I defending Activision here. I just like to play devil's advocate since I see things from a different vantage point.

I'd say that it depends heavily on the engine used. Of course, if they are doing something totally new, then it is usually unlikely to chase all platforms right from the start. But then again, these are usually titles that need more than just 2 years of development time.
In the end, it really boils down to the point how good the dev leader and his team is. If they know what they will be facing, they will prepare some things, even if it is not in use already, but which will make the whole porting a lot easier.

But then of course the next question must be "how much does a good development team cost?" and can they just as easily get one. Not to say that the devs at Activision are not good, but if I look around the IT industry in general, finding truly talented people is not only a problem in the gaming industry.

And according the the "devil's advocate", I didn't see it as that as nobody really knows what goes on in the heads of those guys, leaving us to exchange theories.
Nothing wrong with that at all...

I just hope that Sony actually starts addressing these problems in terms of PR. Not just telling everyone that it is the best piece of hardware, but to really explain where they are and where they are heading. I am still baffled by the fact that Sony still has seperate PSN stores and teams, losing quite a lot of money just by restricting their customers to buy content based on their region and payment method.

 

[Kelthurin]

I think one bloke up there figured out who the REAL CEO of Activision really is.

 

[dnadns]

I think one bloke up there figured out who the REAL CEO of Activision really is.

I'm still struggeling if he is referring to the topic or the country in my profile.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Well, hard to argue that without knowing about some numbers on their side. On the other hand, Activision seemed to drop the ball on a couple occasions when then let Brütal Legend and others go, just to realize their error afterwards. Kind of leaves you wondering what they would consider a "smaller" title.

To be fair, I'd say that Brutal Legend was a smaller title when they dropped it. After EA picked them up it seems like it's profile increased by an order of magnitude. It looks to me like EA decided to take a risk and put some of their weight behind the game. I hope it pays off for them.

 

[Kelthurin]

I think one bloke up there figured out who the REAL CEO of Activision really is.

I'm still struggeling if he is referring to the topic or the country in my profile.

Fairly sure it's the topic.

 

[Grand_Poohbah]

Who wants me to get them popcorn when Indigo Dingo shows up?

More to the point I don't think Activision will drop support. They are just trying their power over the industry. Besides Sony might drop the price along with the new PS3 Slim.

I'll have some popcorn. Extra butter please!

 

[DazZ.]

Oh no! We'll lose great classics like.. Uhh.. Call of Duty WAW and COD 3.
Seriously, Activision has the Guitar Hero francise, but thats about it.
Not to mention their Call of Duty's are much more mediocre compared to Infinity Ward, and World at War has proven this.

Activision still worked with Infinity Ward on CoD4.
Its (mostly) Treyarch that ruined World at War.

 

[devildog1170]

Win

 

[iTeamKill]

Sony just can't seem to get the developer/publisher relationships right with this generation.

Its because, as much as I don't like to admit it, DirectX is easy to program for. It's what pc and xbox runs on, and its very efficient.

Personally, I say screw both consoles and go with pc, but I also like to not have to pay monthly/annual/update fees with my games.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I dont think people really realize what games Activision publishes, as I see a lot of "I dont own any activision games anyway"...

You might want to check this list and remind yourself that while you might not THINK you own activision games, chances are a good chunk of your games you DO own have their stamp on them somewhere..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_games

a few notables:

Call of Duty series
Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Just about ANY marvel game, including spiderman
Tony Hawk
They now are part of Blizzard, makers of WOrld of Warcraft
Prototype
Alien vs. Predator
Gun
Guitar Hero
Quake series
Wolfenstein
Tomb Raider
Tenchu
Transformers
James Bond
the Crash Bandicoot series
and my beloved SPyro games (yes I love spyro, go to hell)

Not that I expect anything of this... Sony is pushing their 10 year cycle plan onto game publishers as if they still dictated the "gaming industry". They apparently havent realized that video games are a billion dollar a year industry that has grown beyond the Playstation 2.
Companies are going to go where the most profits are, and could care less about how profitable a console is for a specific company or how badly Sony needs to attract a larger base. They arent going to wait around for the Playstation 3 to become 'profitable' 4 years from now. They want to sell games NOW, and if that means leaving the PS3 behind, then thats exactly what they, and other publishers will do.
Sony has some hard decisions to make...

 

[Khazoth]

Sucks to be Sony, having the PS3 outsold by the PS2, Valve refusing to make a game for it, and now Activision is about to drop it.


I loved my Playstation 2, sad to see what sony did to itself.

 

[Pendragon9]

*sigh* Another crybaby thread about how you all are so poor and desperate that you have to once again make anti-sony comments.

Whatever. You all just cry some more about the high price, then let Nintendo and Microsoft scam you.

I'll say it again, SOny is the cheapest console this generation. If you can't get that through your heads, then you really don't have any business arguing over how stupid you think the PS3 is doing this generation.

Just please ponder on that for a second.