Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Activision threatens to drop PS3, PSP

  • By Mark Walton, GameSpot UK
  • Posted Jun 19, 2009 8:41 am PT

CEO Robert Kotick tells The Times that Sony doesn't "make it easy for me to support the platform," calls for PS3 price cut.

Despite a growing user base for the PlayStation 3 and PSP, Sony recently reported a total net loss of $1.03 billion , its first since 1995. The news came on top of previously announced job cuts and vast restructuring, while its flagship console, the PS3, continues to lag significantly behind both the Xbox 360 and the Wii in worldwide unit sales.

Kotick would like the PS3 to be cheaper.

Kotick would like the PS3 to be cheaper.

Now it looks like things might be taking an even greater turn for the worse for Sony. Speaking to The Times of London, Activision Blizzard CEO Robert Kotick threatened to pull support for both the PS3 and the PSP as early as 2010, saying that the return on creating games for the platforms isn't as good as on competing systems.

"I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform," he said. "It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation."

"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates are likely to slow," he continued. "If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony." When asked about a time frame he said, "When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console--and the PSP."

Kotick's recent statements aren't the first time he's called for a price cut to the current generation of consoles. In November 2007, he told a Reuters Media Summit that all three consoles need to be priced under $200 by 2009 if they want to continue pursuing mass-market adoption.

Activision Blizzard is weathering the current global economic crisis with aplomb, having reported a $189 million profit on revenues of $981 million during its January-March quarter. The publisher's rhythm franchise Guitar Hero also continues to perform, with Kotick describing the series "as big as Titanic with better margins." The franchise is soon to be bolstered by the upcoming release of turntable-equipped rhythm game DJ Hero, which is due to be released on the Xbox 360, PS3, PlayStation 2, and Wii later this year.

[UPDATE] Sony didn't stray from the company line in issuing a response to Kotick's statements. "PlayStation has tremendous momentum coming out of E3, and we are seeing positive growth with more than 350 titles slated to hit across all our platforms, including many anticipated games from our publishing partners," the publisher said in a statement. "We enjoy healthy business relationships with and greatly value our publishing partners and are working closely with them to deliver the best entertainment experience."

3711 Comments

  • deviant9

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 3:34 am GMT

    Im one of those people that has always seen the Playstation as crap basically. I lol'ed at this but still I would like Sony to maintain a good holding in the market because without competition we are doomed. I would like to see Nintendo go belly up and then we could get their games on a 'next gen' console. But alas that wont happen either cos people wont stop buying that silly Wii. Sigh. I dont think this will happen though

  • TevoxZi

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 8:38 am GMT

    @spartacus125

    I believe this is bogus, besides a pricecut is coming on PS3 which was the "request" in this article.

    @flyingdutchdog
    Why's that? Oh well.

  • spartacus125

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 9:27 pm GMT

    really bad news for me. i just got a ps3 for my 15th birthday and i was expecting to buy the rest of the cod games for the ps3 instead of computer

  • flyingdutchdog

    Posted Aug 26, 2009 12:17 am GMT

    @Ehggsz
    Keep telling yourself that ... I'm sure you believe it ... As for my PS3, it is a far and I mean far second to my 360 ... whistle and the dogs will come like sheep.

  • king_chapeton15

    Posted Aug 18, 2009 5:53 pm GMT

    well sony did a price cit already so this wont be happening

  • kentuckyfried00

    Posted Aug 10, 2009 4:42 pm GMT

    Screw Activision. If they drop the ps3, I'll just get their games on the PC through less than legitimate methods. If they think my money (for ps3 games) isn't good enough for them, so be it.

  • LordRaymond

    Posted Jul 31, 2009 8:49 pm GMT

    Activision would be dumb to drop the PS3 and PSP which means they will lose their profit from game sales from PS3 which COD4 and World at War brought them at least $300 in revenue.

  • Ehggsz

    Posted Jul 31, 2009 2:33 pm GMT

    @mtlthor

    Isn't that something? Xbox360 console sales were up only due to the pathetic quality of the systems that made people purchase more 360's. And I'm sure it's true to a certain percentage that the rise of PlayStation 3 consoles is due to 360 owners getting tired of their system breaking down and ending up buying another one over and over again.

    As for Activision, I could care less. They don't publish any games I'm interested in. Modern Warfare 2 maybe, but I can still do without as I was easily able to refuse the first MW.

  • mtlthor

    Posted Jul 29, 2009 9:52 pm GMT

    the reason for the xbox 3s*$^y sales doing well is because the system craps out forcing users to have to buy the system again. the ps3 has far less problems and is made a whole lot better. i think that xbox is mad that they dont have a blu-ray and they went with hd dvd.

  • Letmekilluplz

    Posted Jul 29, 2009 8:24 pm GMT

    Good thing I have a PS3 and Xbox 360

  • bloodshot191

    Posted Jul 26, 2009 11:37 am GMT

    I think microsoft is paying activison to do this cause the xbox elite cost just as much as a 80gig ps3

  • ShadowDragon720

    Posted Jul 18, 2009 4:41 pm GMT

    I sure wouldn't mind a PS3 price drop. However, I'll still get the system once I rack up enough money later this year.

  • booty56

    Posted Jul 12, 2009 10:39 pm GMT

    I think there is a conspiracy with Microsoft! I think Microsoft is paying game developers and web streaming sites like Hulu to boycott PS3. I mean PS3 owners can't watch things on Hulu anymore, because Hulu blocked PS3 owners from watching movies and shows on the Playstation 3. And Activision wouldn't dare to drop PS3, especially since CoD 6 will come out. But Microsoft will get rid of the competition any way.AND I MEAN ANY WAY!!

  • division_9

    Posted Jul 10, 2009 11:09 pm GMT

    Why discontiue PS3 support?, Call of duty 4 modern warfare has tons and tons of fans, Modern warfare 2 will fly off the shelves across all platforms so cutting PS3's support would just be unreasonable from a financial standpoint.

  • xtoperchris

    Posted Jul 9, 2009 8:14 am GMT

    This Kotick just want more money.. He's not even losing money on PS3 titles, it's just not as good as the other consoles' numbers but if you're not losing money, why drop it?

  • xtoperchris

    Posted Jul 9, 2009 8:11 am GMT

    Sony was once the top selling console without being the most powerful hardware. Now, they want to have superb hardware but not selling that good. 23M sales is not bad for a 3 yr old console, it's just not as good as the PS2's sales figure. At the end of the day, price is what mainstream consumers look for and not the technology inside the console.

  • Cheesehead9099

    Posted Jul 4, 2009 5:36 pm GMT

    robertwarnes yep your right. 360 costs jsut as much as PS3 does the reason its cheaper is cuz MS disguises all of their costs, and make the system cheap itself s the everyday consumer will buy the system that is cheaper at first glance. But when you start adding on all these extra things like Xbox LIVE and The wi-fi adapter, yoou'll realise that the 360 costs just as much as the PS3. but, rest assured, the wii has been selling like crack cuz its thre cheapest and cuz of nintendos cheap tech motion controller, so the xbox360 will keep selling like that until people start to realise the value in a system thats priced higher. I mean they buy friggin gucci purses at like 1000 bucks but say o well the 360 is cheapar so ima buy it woohoho

  • Spartan_Legend

    Posted Jul 3, 2009 7:10 pm GMT

    I agree, however I think it wouldn't be so bad if they lowered the PS3 price a tad bit. Say...$350? XD It would save 50 bucks on purchasing. XD Another thing is personally I don't think they're losing profit selling on the PS3. -.-

  • robertwarnes91

    Posted Jun 29, 2009 11:14 pm GMT

    PS3 overpriced? Is Activision crazy? The only reason the Xbox 360 is so cheap is because very little comes standard. Once you add the Wire-less add-on and a rechargable batteries, as well as Xbox Live fees, your payng as much as it would cost to buy a PS3.

  • delcidanddarth

    Posted Jun 29, 2009 12:55 am GMT

    @DarkFireGod69

    Wow... you are really fudging on the details. You are suggesting that the development costs are so high on the PS3, that even if Activision generates $300 million in revenue from two games on the PS3 (games that are cross-platform), they are losing money. If that were true, then nobody would make games for the PS3, because if anyone can turn a profit on the economically weakest console, then a large publisher like Activision can. Actually, they DO make money... they would make more if everyone who owned a PS3 owned a 360 or Wii instead, but that's not really his decision, is it?

    As I've said before, let Kotick put his money where his mouth is, and try to drop support for PS3/PSP (if his shareholders even let him). He'll save the few million dollars it would cost to port the cross-platform game to PS3, but he'll lose a few hundred million in sales.

  • Dominicobaggio

    Posted Jun 28, 2009 1:37 pm GMT

    Secondly if games cost so much to develop and port like you are imagining, they wouldnt make them in different languages for different countries, and spend time editing things out for certain countries. The fact is every penny is worth it to these companies since most of their employees are salaried, and they would be doing nothing if not porting/editing etc.

    Finally never listen to a CEO, he is interested in his own pockets and shareholders and doesnt know much about the nitty gritty of a company. Of course it would be good for activision if the ps3 was cheaper, more ps3s, more sales of games. It would be better if they were both free. But like others have said on here it would sell more if they lowered prices of games. Because the expense in a console is not the console, its the games you buy for it, specially rock band and the like!!

    Sony shouldnt drop their price, i would hate them to make a console like microsoft with so many after purchases. Its the wrong way to do business. Sony do business as sony. Despite the economic crashh and despite the weak yen. I bet if you worked it out, their wouldnt be much difference in profit between them and microsofts xbox dept. (considering the billions they put into repairs. It would be interesting to see. I respect your opinions though i really dont agree with them. Time will prove who is right or wrong in 3 years where the consoles and their owners stand.

  • Dominicobaggio

    Posted Jun 28, 2009 1:37 pm GMT

    Well i dont want to get on anyones back or argue but most of these points are moot. Most companies dont have realistic numbers for the amount of users. Microsoft for example have sold MANY multiples of their consoles for replacements for broken ones. This is a fact and i have seen this first hand, and i only see a small portion of the market. Sony state howmany PSN ids they have but of course people have multiples.

    Sales of consoles dont equate to sales of games.

    Also i might be alone here but market wise sony do not have only 20sum percent of the market. Wii though its a strong contender is not, in my humble opinion, in competition with the xbox and ps3. It doesnt have the same type of games and doesnt attract the same market. I think a large percentage of people who have the wii wouldnt touch another console if the wii didnt exist. So in real terms i would say sony has nearer 40% of the market.

  • Lay5354

    Posted Jun 28, 2009 4:52 am GMT

    Sony is really at an awkward situation. If it does a price cut, it will lose money from production costs, but gain money from selling more PS3s and Games......but the decision is quite a heavy one to wager on. I suppose Activision is giving them a little nudge. Activision has every right in thinking of dropping Sony. They could use the money to invest elsewhere and make more than what the PS3 has to offer. Until they really have a game plan lets hope they stay with the Sony system.

  • mos2000

    Posted Jun 27, 2009 8:23 pm GMT

    @Dominicobaggio

    ….. [continued] Now everything that I am stating is supported by the NPD group, and is posted all over the net from outlets that themselves are PS3 enthusiasts. If you or anybody can provide proof...HERE ON THIS THREAD.... that the profit margins between 360 and PS3 games are not that much, then you're right. We can all say that every developer (except for naughty dog) is greedy and don't have a valid claim. Until then, here are just a slither of the facts I have backing up my concerns:

    Market share and Sales - Current and previous gen: -http://www.vgchartz.com/
    -www.npd.com/
    -http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_Console_sales

    Analysts call for price cut
    -http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090401-712508.html
    -http://www.edge-online.com/news/analyst-urges-ps3-price-cut

    Developers complaints -- Oh where do I start
    -Google Developer/Publisher complaints about PS3 (beware your PC might glow ominously then explode)
    -This website!!! Just check the archives

    And here are some more recent interesting complaints/observations regarding PS3 developement:
    -http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/20/sony-now-charging-publishers-for-ps3-downloadable-content/
    -http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3277020

    Alright, @Darkfiregod69 and I will be waiting by the short yellow bus with the our "massive lack of business acumen" and "logik" until you get back...BYE!

  • mos2000

    Posted Jun 27, 2009 8:21 pm GMT

    @Dominicobaggio

    I know there is a lot of fanboy chest-pounding occurring on this forum, but rest assured I am not hoping for the PS3 to fail. There are over 3,800 comments on this thread so I can understand why you haven't noticed my other posts. To recap:

    I own a PS3 -- I want the PS3 to succeed so there is enough competition in the hardcore gaming console market -- I don't necessarily think the other 2 are doing anything stellar. Seriously, its like reps from both Nintendo and Microsoft are slipping money into someone's Swiss account at Sony to sabotage their strategy

    With that said, here are some cold hard facts:

    PS3's game production costs are causing other publishers/developers to hint that they are not at all comfortable with the profit margins developing for the system -- Sony went from having 70+% market share (PS1/PS2) with their flagship system to currently having 21% -- Analysts across the board are doubting the PS3's ability to sustain itself without a price cut soon

    Therefore all I've been asking since i've been on this forum is for PS3 owners to start putting Sony to task for a price cut, to do better regarding it's push for exclusives, or both. The problem is Dominicobaggio, those like yourself want to attack the messenger, or make this a 360 vs PS3 battle instead of either saying Activision is full of ---- or questioning Sony's strategy. No one said that Activision isn't making money with the PS3, the question is are they and other developers/publishers making ENOUGH money.......[continuing]

  • Dominicobaggio

    Posted Jun 27, 2009 5:27 pm GMT

    Wow you guys have a massive lack of business acumen. Its amusing. You must work for banks or something to be that clueless with figures lol. Are you guys directly responsible for the credit crunch?

    FACT Activision makes money on PS3 games or they wouldnt repeat WOULDNT make them. It doesnt cost them that much more to port a game which is all they are doing recently (hence games looking the same on both consoles).

    If they made it just for the PS3 then maybe your argument might be right as they would cost more, but then again they would look much better being developed just on PS3, would sell more, and more PS3 would sell in all likelyhood. In the near future you will see that with the Agent games and other PS3 exclusives.

    I now understand reading your money logik why you went for the cheap system which costs more after a couple of years (if its not broken) Fiscal Genius Mos2000 and Darkfiregod69. Just stop praying for the PS3 to fail and concentrate on having fun with your own system. Are you so upset that you must try to break PS3's down at any oportunity? I dont understand this jealousy.

  • mos2000

    Posted Jun 27, 2009 3:05 pm GMT

    @DarkFireGod69
    Again you hit it right on the nail... with a picture perfect breakdown. I wouldn't say that the PS3 is a failure yet, bit it is getting close to it. When you look at what distinguishes success financially, overhead in comparison to profit is a big factor. If when reporting its finances to their investors, a Publisher has not shown good enough return on its investments , they will have big problems. They will lose their ability to raise capital for future projects. That's because investors will pull out. I'm going out on a limb... and I'm going to say at least 85-90% of Activision's (or any publisher that trades on the stock market) shareholders ain't touched a video game since Atari, if ever. They could care less that GOW has more gore... or that LittleBigPlanet allows you to make your own levels. At some point, they most likely heard that the video game sector was doing good, looked at various companies, and decided to invest in them. Therefore, for an industry juggernaut such as Sony to be doing so sub-par (at best) for the PS3 and PSP, shows that they had a flawed strategy. They thought that because they had such name recognition, gamers would just buy their system in large scales no matter what. Hence came their idea to go with Blueray media and the Cell processor with no serious follow through early on with a descent line-up. They were hoping they could save themselves money and have only 1 flagship system for 2 generations. This decision is proving to become a very tragic one.

  • DarkFireGod69 posted Jun 26, 2009 6:01 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    DarkFireGod69

    Posted Jun 26, 2009 6:01 pm GMT (hide)

    @delcidanddarth
    Almost correct. His logic is.... or seems like....
    1) The PS3 costs more to develop on (fact). 2) PS3 has the smallest user base (51 vs 31 vs 23 million units for the Wii, 360, PS3, respectively)
    3) So if it costs $$xxx for game a on 360 and Wii but costs $xxxxx to make for the ps3, with the fact more people are playing it on 360/Wii makes it more cost effective to produce it for.
    3a) $xxx development cost + Higher owned system = $$$$
    3b) $xxxxx development cost + least owned system = ..... maybe breaking even on costs if not being negative.
    4) So why support a console that costs more to make the game for, and could net us less $$ to recoup from the project.
    5) 360/Wii = successful
    ps3 = Failure

  • delcidanddarth

    Posted Jun 26, 2009 1:31 pm GMT

    @10679 "...if activision is making alot more profit on other consoles and very little on the ps3 when compared to the other consoles then its completely logical that they stop supporting it."

    Yes, in that hypothetical situation, it would be logical. But that situation is a figment of Kotick's imagination. As I've posted several times before, Activistion generated at least $300 million in revenue between Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War (vgchartz.com, assuming $40 of revenue from each sale).

    In this case, I think Kotick is making a very large leap of logic. Here is his train of thought, as I perceive it. 1) The PS3 costs more to develop on (fact). 2) PS3 has the smallest user base (51 vs 31 vs 23 million units for the Wii, 360, PS3, respectively) 3) Because of these two facts, the PS3 is the most inefficient to develop for (fact). -----> (il)logical jump ------> 4) Our company would make more money if we stopped developing on the PS3.

    At the jump, he is assuming that the PS3 costs him money. If that were true for a large company like Activision, NO company would make games for the PS3 at all. He is basically imagining a hypothetical situation where the PS3/Sony didn't exist, and all of those 23 million PS3 users would instead be Wii or 360 users. Well, if he's being that "logical", then he would drop 360 as well, because the 51 million Wii users are much greater than 360, versus the 31 to 23 advantage the 360 has over PS3.

  • mos2000

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 3:58 pm GMT

    @Lay5354

    Look, I know you're trying to make a valid point without being really too harsh, so I'll lay off the wise cracks. However your point still is the same old irrelevant argument I hear all the time. If you're a true gamer, who CARES about a blue-ray player. Apparently you do not have a 360 or you wouldn't keep mentioning this "free" online play that the 360 "doesn't" have. Again, all the gold subscription provides over the silver is this netflix crap and access to 'some' Demos before everyone else. The exclusives on the PS3 though may be somewhat noteworthy, but are not enough for Sony to get itself in a more desired standing. Sony made its name by having exclusives, a crapload of games, and even more third party support that made finding cheap games and accessories a breeze. They've completely reversed this fortune by trying to save themselves money in the next generation and sticking it to it's faithful by not putting it's best foot forward. Therefore, a 360 WITH the red rings issue is still a much cheaper and fulfilling experience than some expensive blue ray player(at this ppoint...hopefully Sony has been paying attention to this thread). Call me old fashioned, but as far as I'm concerned, movies are for the theatres...It's all about the games

  • 10679

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 3:30 pm GMT

    @delcidanddarth

    its completely possible because like moosesashi said if activision is making alot more profit on other consoles and very little on the ps3 when compared to the other consoles then its completely logical that they stop supporting it. just look at valve. they completely stop supporting the ps3 after left for dead and ubisoft splinter cell games have yet to make their mark on the ps3. its only a matter of time till other big companies realizes it and pull out from the ps3 if sony doesn't do anything to improve the ps3 sales..

  • 10679

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 3:23 pm GMT

    @hornetine

    i know he didn't say that it will be coming but he also didn't say that it won't be coming therefore there is possibilities that it will or won't be coming to 360. either way i don't care because mgs4 was very boring mgs game. btw i have played all the previous mgs game.

  • moosesashi

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 2:29 pm GMT

    It's simple economics people! It is my understanding that developing for the PS3 and it's "amazing cores and capabilities" costs alot more than developing for industry standard hardware. Maybe it is time they upped the industry standard, but in this current economic downturn, it's not likely. The fact that Sony insists on keeping this extravagant price tag attached to this peice of hardware is hurting their marketability. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have to go to work every day. I have to earn my money. The point is, Activision is a business. If they aren't seeing a decent profit return, it would only be prudent for them to drop the Playstation platform. IMO.

  • delcidanddarth

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 12:53 pm GMT

    @whataguy69

    "Would PS3 consoles be selling more without Activision? Lets put it this way, if CoD, Guitar Hero, and Tony Hawk weren't available for the PS3, then Sony's console wouldn't sell as much."

    I wouldn't say these cross-platform games helped sell a lot more PS3s... however, if these games were exclusive to xbox then that would significantly increase 360 sales and drop PS3 sales a bit. But this is the entire point of going multi-platform. If Activision only released these games on the xbox, they are manipulating the market to become a monopoly. However, if their plan doesn't work (and it can't, monopolies are illegal), then they are losing money on 30-60% of their customers on other consoles.

    I agree with you on not knowing the full story. Let's assume that Microsoft and Sony pay companies off to be console-exclusive (and I don't think that's a wild assumption, how else are 3rd party game publishers enticed to be console exclusive?). In the case of the Call of Duty games, Microsoft would have had to pay Activision at least $300 million dollars to make it worth it to Activision. I REALLY doubht they did that, though. As such, Kotick's statements still don't make sense. He's the CEO, and he's supposed to do what's best for the company... this is always supposed to be making the most money. His argument would only make sense if Microsoft would pay them more money than they generated from selling the PS3 version.

  • Metalnoid

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 12:03 pm GMT

    Jump in SONY!!! Jump in!!! lol

  • hornetine

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 10:57 am GMT

    @Lay5354

    The mgs series have never been true exclusives. And sony doesnt rely on mgs4 to sell systems-there are plenty of choices.

    Doent it speak volumes that kojima would rather work on the psp mgs instead of the next-gen consoles? It surely does. I cant help but have a feeling he just doesnt like Microsoft despite being pressured by Konami. MGS R is a spin-off of the series anyway, it would have made a huge news like mgs 4 did if it were a ps3 exclusive.

  • hornetine

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 10:50 am GMT

    @ 10679

    No he didnt say it wasn't coming to the 360 at E3 becuz he already said it a thousand times before.

  • DarkFireGod69

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 5:55 am GMT

    @ Lay5354 "Look, in 3 years without much maintenance my PS3 will still be sitting there. And if your 360, god forbid, suffered from a heat stroke, you'd be down $349."

    Well you got that right! it will be just sitting there as most the games are very lackluster at best.
    You know I had a launch 360, and 2 years before anything happen to it and it was replaced in 2 weeks free of charge.
    as has all my other ones.
    The games are really what sells the systems, and its just goes to show you that ps3 dont have the games to really move systems.
    If it was at 199-299 a system then they would fly off the shelves, but at 400 a pop, and the games being 60+ each and not many of them worth evn 30 bucks a pop, your not going to move systems.
    360 has a ****load of system moving games, Halo,Gears, Mass Effect, just to name a few. But now we are getting Final Fantasy and MGS, not to mention the exclusive DLC MS sercured for some of the multiplatform games that came out.
    ps2 is failing and only blind fanboys cant or wont see it

  • Gambitcrawfish

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 3:33 am GMT

    @skillzdatkillz0

    You bought your PS3 for 790USD and are continually buying each game for 79USD?

    Where the hell are you buying your games? Don't blame Sony for your overspending. You blame fast food joins for gaining weight too I bet, huh?

  • whataguy69

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 1:05 am GMT

    @delcidanddarth

    "So, generating over $300 million in revenue (from the last 2 Call of Duty games alone) from the PS3 version makes it hard for Kotick to support the platform?"

    Would PS3 consoles be selling more without Activision? Lets put it this way, if CoD, Guitar Hero, and Tony Hawk weren't available for the PS3, then Sony's console wouldn't sell as much. Again I said it before, how would you know what's going on backstage. Your only arguing because of revenue. I'd believe a CEO has a point. End of story.

  • TehUndeadHorror

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 10:07 pm GMT

    I've never liked Activision and this just makes me dislike them even more.

  • Lay5354

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 9:58 pm GMT

    @hornetine

    The problem right now is MGS series is no longer exclusive, but instead on the 360. Graphics or no graphics 360 now has Sony's trump card game.

  • 10679

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 9:47 pm GMT

    @ hornetine

    kojima never said on e3 that he won't be releasing on 360 lol so there is a possibility that it will be coming on 360. it doesn't really matter for me if it doesn't happen.

  • Lay5354

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 8:50 pm GMT

    @mos2000

    continued

    Look I'm not saying the 360 sucks, I'm just saying It wasn't such a good choice to purchase one in the start. Price is killing momentum of the sales, I don't disagree at all. But I don't care much for Sony's sales... that's their job to worry. What I'm saying is as a consumer, it was a much better choice to save up for a PS3 rather than an Xbox 360 by the sheer fact that an Xbox 360 at the time turns into a brick.

    Sure a typical avg consumer buying products wouldn't know which system is better as long as its cheap. But as a gamer its foolish not to know both sides to the story.

    Its like the Chrysler. Its cheap now, but would you buy it? Maybe there are still people out there that don't know its flaws and would like to still purchase one because its cheap, but because I know the problems, I'd save more in the long run purchasing from a different brand.

  • Lay5354

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 8:49 pm GMT

    @mos2000

    First of all, your sadly mistaken if you think that PS3 system does not have DLC, it does and its called the Playstation Network. But, I still believe that it was a lack luster choice to purchase a system that had needed to be maintained while sitting there. Its great that you recall the Nintendo era in which you might need to blow into the cartrage and get it started again. Try blowing on an Xbox... maybe the red ring will disappear too. Do you recall Nintendo spending Billions to solve a problem that a child could fix? No.

    Another thing I'd like to mention, which i have mentioned many times before, since the Red Ring problem is practically solved with its 3 years warranty everything is great. But, you cannot deny the fact that these offers were not available at the beginning, making it a very poor decision to purchase a 360 so early.

    Look, in 3 years without much maintenance my PS3 will still be sitting there. And if your 360, god forbid, suffered from a heat stroke, you'd be down $349.

    The PS3 has yet to show what it has to offer?
    let me list:
    -Blu-ray Capability, which i believe is going to be DVDs over VCDs in the future.
    -Exclusive DLC which you have kindly mentioned
    -FREE online play
    -Exclusive titles
    -PS1&PS2 backward compatibility only older versions apply
    *which was a bad move made by Sony
    -Durability

  • mos2000

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 7:55 pm GMT

    @PS3Champ

    [continued] Whether we as gamers like it or not, that is the nature of the business. Do you own any shares in Activision, I bet not, therefore you and I really have no say. The only thing we can do is urge 360 owners to boycott Activision games; which aint happenin'. Plus it won't mean much because they will use all the revenue they normally would have for PS3 games and convert them to 360 titles that will wield them more money... and keep the shareholders happy. Or... we can use the power that we do have and focus it towards Sony to become more competitive, like everyone should have from the start.

  • mos2000

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 7:54 pm GMT

    @PS3Champ

    It's simple mathematics. For the sake of your tag, lets use this as an example: Say you owned a PS3 novelty shop. For whatever reason, you just sell 2 items -- a Little Big Planet Sacboy bobblehead (no pun intended) figurine and a God of War action figure. They both retail at $20. You sell a good amount of both a month; 2,000 Sacboys and 5,000 Kratos a month. However, because the Sacboys are imported, they cost you $16 wholesale for each, where the Kratos only cost you $10. Because you love Sacboy so much you disregard the cost just to sell it in your shop. One day the economy falls apart. Investors are looking at your bottom line and pulling out of your business like gamers out of a theater playing a Uwe Boll movie. Subsequently, your water gets shut off so you're forced to bath in baby oil, all the while you're wife threatens to leave you for a somalian midget because you're broke and oily. With no other action to take, you look at your finance books and realize "I can make more $ and stop these chain of unfortunate events if...I only sale GOW action Figures!"
    Now I know, things are not that dire for a publisher that owns the WOW franchise, however this ridiculous example highlights one thing. These Publishers are PUBLICLY HELD COMPANIES. Which means their survival are all based upon the satisfaction of shareholders..... >>>

  • PS3Champ

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 6:47 pm GMT

    F! If Activision does this then I'm f'ing FINISHED with Guitar Hero! I won't be the only one either! Do they really think this is a smart thing to do? OMFG! No! All this will do is dump more money into Harmonix's pockets. Why on earth would they want to do that!? Do you have brains!?!

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!