Activision Threatens to Drop PS3 Support

[shadow skill]

There are lots of gullible people in this thread. If you really think Activision is going to do anything you need your head examined. If it had been cost effective for these people to not support the PS3 or 360 they would have already done so long ago. Let's say they drop Sony, what are they going to do when the price cut does finally come? Go running back to PS3 and look like idiots? Should they drop 360 support if the Wii drops price?

 

[Laughing Man]

So Activision acquire Blizzard become larger than EA and suddenly think they can throw their weight around and people will take them seriously? Here's the big question how many games does Activision actually develop? Not how many games does it publish. The publisher and developer are not the same people. The developer decides what formats their games will be developed for. The publisher can buy the license to be the sole publisher of a title across all formats but that's generally for the benefit of the developer.

To address the list of games in Hyena's post. I'll target the main ones.

COD Activision do not own the license to publish COD and the game is developed by two other companies who are not owned or related to Activision. So nothing stopping them approaching someone else to publish the game on PS3 for them.

Tony Hawk Is more or less the same as COD with the added problem of the name actually being associated with something outside the game franchise. Activision would have little if any say in what formats it lands on.

Blizzard and WOW Never coming to any console, so big whoop.

Alien vs. Predator Uh I am lost but the developer is Rebellion and Sega is the publisher, at least for the next AvP game. Maybe Activision were involved with the last two games but since they were both PC exclusives who cares?

All the other games are either FPS which suck balls to the Nth degree on any console or just massive who gives a toss and certainly not worth finding out who owns the license to the IP and who the developers are.

The thing is Activision may be big but just because they are big doesn't mean thry have the legal clout to dictate what consoles certain games appear on. Their seems to be very few games of note that Activision out right own and thus have the power to say yes or no when it comes to which format the games come out on.

 

[shadow skill]

According to Wikipedia Activision owns Infinity Ward.

 

[Reg5879]

So Activision acquire Blizzard become larger than EA and suddenly think they can throw their weight around and people will take them seriously? Here's the big question how many games does Activision actually develop? Not how many games does it publish. The publisher and developer are not the same people. The developer decides what formats their games will be developed for. The publisher can buy the license to be the sole publisher of a title across all formats but that's generally for the benefit of the developer.

To address the list of games in Hyena's post. I'll target the main ones.

COD Activision do not own the license to publish COD and the game is developed by two other companies who are not owned or related to Activision. So nothing stopping them approaching someone else to publish the game on PS3 for them.

Tony Hawk Is more or less the same as COD with the added problem of the name actually being associated with something outside the game franchise. Activision would have little if any say in what formats it lands on.

Blizzard and WOW Never coming to any console, so big whoop.

Alien vs. Predator Uh I am lost but the developer is Rebellion and Sega is the publisher, at least for the next AvP game. Maybe Activision were involved with the last two games but since they were both PC exclusives who cares?

All the other games are either FPS which suck balls to the Nth degree on any console or just massive who gives a toss and certainly not worth finding out who owns the license to the IP and who the developers are.

The thing is Activision may be big but just because they are big doesn't mean thry have the legal clout to dictate what consoles certain games appear on. Their seems to be very few games of note that Activision out right own and thus have the power to say yes or no when it comes to which format the games come out on.

Well said mate, seriously well said.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

So Activision acquire Blizzard become larger than EA and suddenly think they can throw their weight around and people will take them seriously? Here's the big question how many games does Activision actually develop? Not how many games does it publish. The publisher and developer are not the same people. The developer decides what formats their games will be developed for. The publisher can buy the license to be the sole publisher of a title across all formats but that's generally for the benefit of the developer.

Couple of inaccuracies..

One: Considering that Activision is a name you recognize that makes games, whereas Sony the COMPANY makes and publishes relatively few games itself, I think they can say whatever they want, especially since they echo the sentiments of several third party developers... and in case you didn't realize it, third party developers are the KEY to a console's success, unless you are Nintendo and are content with nursing your fan base along with countless rehashes of the same tired titles you've been staying afloat with for the past 20+ years.

Two: Activision isn't even throwing their weight around, they made a simple business statement: If the cost doesnt come down, it wont be profitable for them and if it's not profitable, they won't make games. Now if you don't like activision, fine, thats no skin off your nose, they wont be missed. But for the titles they publish, they DO have fans, and really, at this point I don't think Sony can afford to lose ANY third party published games considering how paltry their quality gaming library is... not that Activision MAKES a lot of quality games but that's neither here nor there..

COD Activision do not own the license to publish COD and the game is developed by two other companies who are not owned or related to Activision. So nothing stopping them approaching someone else to publish the game on PS3 for them.

Wrong. Call of Duty is published by Activision. They have an agreement with Infinity ward and Treyarch BOTH of whom are owned by Activision. Not sure where you're getting you're info, but you might not want to count on that "source" anymore...

Tony Hawk Is more or less the same as COD with the added problem of the name actually being associated with something outside the game franchise. Activision would have little if any say in what formats it lands on.

Wrong again. Tony Hawk? games are made by Neversoft. Guess who owns "Neversoft?". Yup, you guessed it, Activision. So I'd say that gives them quite a LOT to say on what format it lands on...

Blizzard and WOW Never coming to any console, so big whoop.

You don't google much do you? Blizzard makes games for the console, and one of the upcoming titles recently announced is a world of warcraft spinoff. Meanwhile, there has LONG been discussions about bringing a port of WOW to the consoles. I honestly believe that sometimes people like to say "NEVER!" because they honestly think that if you say it enough times, it'll make it true. Kind of like Metal Gear or Final Fantasy on the Xbox.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Master Chief end up on the PS3 before the end of it's lifecycle. Why not? Game companies are in the business to make money, not provide with a purpose to exist.

Alien vs. Predator Uh I am lost but the developer is Rebellion and Sega is the publisher, at least for the next AvP game. Maybe Activision were involved with the last two games but since they were both PC exclusives who cares?

People who a.) like Aliens and/or Predators or AVP (which were GREAT games), b.) play video games and c.) buy video games, which incidentally are the ONLY people that Activision cares about. Which are the people activision wants to sell games to. On the PC. Which is like the Xbox. Which means they can easily port the games between the two systems. Which means the PS3 still don't get no love.
Oh and the previous Aliens/predator titles were published by Sierra Online who... you guessed it, is Activision.

All the other games are either FPS which suck balls to the Nth degree on any console or just massive who gives a toss and certainly not worth finding out who owns the license to the IP and who the developers are.

Well thats certainly your opinion and you are welcome to it, but really that silly little rant means nothing in this discussion. There are MORE than enough Sony PS3 fans that like FPS just fine and think they work JUST FINE on the PS3. I certainly enjoy Killzone 2 and Thought Resistance 2 was a pretty awesome game. For the people who DON'T want to be bothered with spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on a PC which requires constant tweaks and upgrades over it's lifetime, FPS games are fun and exciting on a console.
Take that elitist "PC's R Bestuuuust raawr!" somewhere else.

The thing is Activision may be big but just because they are big doesn't mean thry have the legal clout to dictate what consoles certain games appear on. Their seems to be very few games of note that Activision out right own and thus have the power to say yes or no when it comes to which format the games come out on.

Actually, they do. If they own the publishing rights, THEY can make the decision. They are the owner company. If they own the developer... they do as well. I'm not sure how difficult that is of a concept, but I can try to re-explain it to you another way if you wish.
All you have to do is ask.

Well said mate, seriously well said.

Exactly.. um.. which part was well said?

The part where he was completely wrong, or the part where he proclaimed FPS's to be shite on consoles implying that PC's rawk 4eva?

 

[caz105]

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.

If Crytec can develop a graphic intensive game such as Crysis 2 individually for the PC PS3 and Xbox I cannot see why a large Company like Activision can't equal or surpass that feat.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

If Crytec can develop a graphic intensive game such as Crysis 2 individually for the PC PS3 and Xbox I cannot see why a large Company like Activision can't equal or surpass that feat.

Quite simply, it's not because they CAN'T... it's because they don't WANT to, and feel they don't HAVE to.

Bottomline: Activision doesn't care how successful the PS3 is. They don't care about selling PS3 consoles. They arent invested in it or Sony's success. They only care about their company and IT'S profits.

It's just straight business, and I don't really understand why people are upset or angry at Activision for making this statement.

In the end, if the PS3 goes belly up or Sony discontinues the system (it wont ever happen, but just for arguments sake, lets just say it does) that isn't going to put Activision out of business. There are still 3 other platforms for them to make games (which is what their business is) on: The xbox, the wii, and the PC.

It's the same thing as people who grief Square-Enix for their decision to release Final Fantasy XIII on the 360... it was a BUSINESS decision, and as a COMPANY, square doesn't want to put all it's eggs in one basket, it's simply not PROFITABLE for them. Just as some companies don't want to make games exclusively for the Xbox or PC. It's about selling GAMES for them, thats it, nothing more. IF they think it's a good business decision to sell games on one console, thats up to them. If they think selling it on ALL platforms is the way to go, again, thats up to them.

You cant get upset because a gaming company doesn't want to waste their time and money developing games on a system when they don't think it's profitable. I'd prefer Hideo Kojima to make Metal Gear games for the Xbox than for him to make NO GAMES at ALL. If Team ICO announced tomorrow that their next game would be an Xbox Exclusive I wouldnt cry. I'd go buy an Xbox. I want them to succeed because I like their GAMES, not the system i play them on.

 

[Terramax]

It's nice to hear so many think the PS3 isn't that expensive for them... but it's too expensive for me.

I've other more important things in my life to spend heaps of money on so £279.99+ or whatever the console is in the UK right now is a real bummer for me. And I'm not buying 2nd hand anymore (too many consoles in the past have broken on me). Put the console down to £200 and chances are within a short space of time I'd have spent another £100 on games for it anyway.

Whilst I agree Activision haven't ever made games worth owning (the only game to do with them I remember owning is Tenchu on the PS1), and the fact that they dropped Brutal Legend is testiment that they've no intention of publishing/ funding an decent games in the the near future, I fully support their push to make the PS3 cheaper.

Most here who claim not to be effected either own PS3s or are Xbox elitists anyway so of course you're not!

 

[MK Tha Rebel]

I personally have never once considered the PS3 too expensive, especially since I've spent a lot less money on it than my 360 or Wii yet use it so much more than either of the other two consoles. I do hope the best for Sony, and hope they're able to figure something out through this gen.

Agreed. The PS3 was a great investment. Mine gets plenty of use, and all the features get used as well, so, money well spent.

I believe that Sony just needs time and a chance to regroup. They've improved since the PS3 launch, so I have faith in Sony.

 

[Stevedave00]

Someone, Play me the 'Taps" Tune please.
I think Sony needs it.
They've lost 1.02 billion so far and when this news hits wall street it'll be even more.
How long can this last?
Seriously?

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

Wow. Sony will be in a lot of trouble if Activision goes 360 exclusive. Although, I doubt it will happen. Sony is stupid; they aren't brain dead.

 

[Laughing Man]

The part where he was completely wrong, or the part where he proclaimed FPS's to be shite on consoles implying that PC's rawk 4eva?

Yeah I was wrong about most of the stuff in that post to be honest the total lack of research done on the post is indicative of just how much I care about

a). Activision dropping PS3 support and
b). Activision games in general

but seriously dude FPS do suck to the Nth degree on consoles, that does not automatically imply that PC's rawk. It implies one thing and one thing only that FPS on consoles suck.

 

[Stevedave00]

I know they said that they would no longer support it in 2010, but when?
X-mas?

 

[BloodSquirrel]

If Crytec can develop a graphic intensive game such as Crysis 2 individually for the PC PS3 and Xbox I cannot see why a large Company like Activision can't equal or surpass that feat.

It's not about "can" or "can not" it's about Return on Investment.

It's about whether or not the 5 million dollars it would cost would be better spent on putting out more PC/360 games.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

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

No it is microsoft that is buying everybody. They are like the rich snobby kids at the playground.

That said, didn't the ps3 outsell the 360 in a period of 20 weeks for both?

Also: If it costs 5 million to simply port a game.. Well you're doing it wrong.

Plus look at it this way. If the game only sells 2 million copies. (I know quite a feat but anyways..) The company will have the end amount of money of 30 million and the distributor would make about 20million. Now, lets say 5 million dollars to port is actually true, its not to hard to make 340,000 sales on the ps3 unless your game is exceptionally shitty.

Someone, Play me the 'Taps" Tune please.
I think Sony needs it.
They've lost 1.02 billion so far and when this news hits wall street it'll be even more.
How long can this last?
Seriously?

Didn't microsoft lose over a billion from having to fix their consoles?

 

[wewontdie11]

Well I don't own a PS3 (pretty much because they are so ridiculously expensive) so this will have little to no effect on me if Activision do decide to cut Sony off.

They do have a point though. There is no point in consorting with a business partners that are pricing themselves out of the market unnecessarily.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

The part where he was completely wrong, or the part where he proclaimed FPS's to be shite on consoles implying that PC's rawk 4eva?

Yeah I was wrong about most of the stuff in that post to be honest the total lack of research done on the post is indicative of just how much I care about

a). Activision dropping PS3 support and
b). Activision games in general

but seriously dude FPS do suck to the Nth degree on consoles, that does not automatically imply that PC's rawk. It implies one thing and one thing only that FPS on consoles suck.

Holy Cow, I want to be your best friend, right here, right now.
Why?
Because I think for the first time in all my years of surfing the internet, YOU are the first person to not only concede a point, but to admit he was a.) wrong and b.) didn't really research his post before making a statement.
It takes a REAL MAN to own up. You've got my 100% respect from this point on

And you are welcome to your opinion on FPS on console and I'll tend to agree to an extent. If given a choice, I'd rather get the PC version of a shooter over any console version... I just find the mouse and keyboard FAR more comfortable and in ways superior to a controller. Recently I was tooling around with Battlefield Bad Company on the PS3, and I just found myself frustrated time and time again when I was getting sniped or hit by AI enemies and couldn't turn or aim fast enough. The analog sticks just arent accurate enough or responsive enough.

On topic again, I'm trying to figure out what people are talking about when they say the PS3 is too expensive... when I bought my 60 gig it cost me $700 bucks!
it's now $399!! Thats the cost most people were complaining that it SHOULD have been back when it released! Seriously, I understand how consumers might FEEL it's over-priced, but considering what it comes with, I'm not entirely certain why people keep complaining about the price. The Wii is $250... by time you buy an extra numchuck and a game or two, you could have had a PS3.

The "it's too expensive" argument is quickly starting to sound like whining from cheapskates who wont be satisfied until Sony is paying YOU to own their system... oh wait.. they practically ARE, considering their losses on each console sold.

 

[Harbinger_]

Well at least Sony hasn't lost any quality games if Activision jumps ship... Seriously I wish people would stop complaining about the price for the console. Not every console can be like the Nintendo Wii and have terribly quality for a low price. Honestly people you get what you pay for.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Well at least Sony hasn't lost any quality games if Activision jumps ship... Seriously I wish people would stop complaining about the price for the console. Not every console can be like the Nintendo Wii and have terribly quality for a low price. Honestly people you get what you pay for.

Actually they probably get a hell of a lot more then what they pay for.

 

[Harbinger_]

Well at least Sony hasn't lost any quality games if Activision jumps ship... Seriously I wish people would stop complaining about the price for the console. Not every console can be like the Nintendo Wii and have terribly quality for a low price. Honestly people you get what you pay for.

Actually they probably get a hell of a lot more then what they pay for.

For what? A PS3 or a Wii?