Topic: Major publisher to stop supporting PS3?

[TJ Spyke]

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has said that if the PS3 continues to sell as poorly as it is right now, they might stop supporting the PS3 (and the PSP too).

This is not an analyst, the is the head of the largest third party publisher (they overtook EA last year) stating that they are seriously thinking about stopping support of Sony systems. The PS3 and PSP are already gonna finish last this gen, but could the loss of Activison Blizzard kill any chance of a comeback and further cement its last place status? We have seen in the past how losing third party support can kill a system (like when the N64 lost Square Soft and Namco, although Namco eventually started supporting it).

Here is the article: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/activision-ceo-we-might-have-to-stop-supporting-sony/#comments

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Oh my we can hope.

A) Sony doesn't drop price, Activision leaves, PS3 goes under.

B) Sony drops price, Activision stays, PS3 doesn't generate enough revenue, PS3 goes under.

Whichever happens first is the winner.

[Ian Sane]

Is it going to help Wii support?  That's all I really care about.  If a bunch of formerly PS3/Xbox 360 games become 360 exclusives, well, that doesn't do me any good.

Still huge news and it's interesting to see Sony fall so fast.  The rule is still in effect: the console market leader will end up being dethroned by their own stupidity.  Atari killed themselves with E.T., Pac-Man, and the 5200.  Nintendo lost out because of their choice to use cartridges.  Sony used their console to push Blu-Ray (which actually worked) and as a result the console costs so much fucking money to produce that it ends up ridiculously overpriced.

[Deguello]

This is probably just Activision fishing for a moneyhat from Sony (not like they'd need one to survive, but they'd need one to continue supporting Sony).  This reminds me of when Namco was all upset that their PS2 games were underperforming in 2002 and pledged to make the GameCube their target platform.  Needless to say, Sony acquiesced a moneyhat and Namco still gave more exclusives to the PS2.

[TJ Spyke]

What surprised me is how much they paid in licensing fees. $500 million in 2008 to Sony? You have to wonder how much Sony is screwing up to be losing money why stuff like this happens, they got $500 million from Activision just for saying "Yes you can release games on our systems". If Activision is not selling enough games on the PS3 to justify the costs, I don't blame them for considering ending their support. I know that several other publishers are not happy with the lack of a PS3 pricecut and the low install base limiting their sales potential, Activision may not be the only publisher ending their support for the PS3.

[broodwars]

Oh my we can hope.

A) Sony doesn't drop price, Activision leaves, PS3 goes under.

B) Sony drops price, Activision stays, PS3 doesn't generate enough revenue, PS3 goes under.

Whichever happens first is the winner.

I don't see why anyone should be happy about this turn of events.  Just because Sony could be on the verge of losing Activision (Something I highly doubt.  This sounds like a grab for more money.) that neither indicates that those projects will suddenly become Wii games, OR that their Wii projects will suddenly start getting quality treatment.  This changes nothing about the Wii and only harms people who actually like playing PS3 games.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I hope they pull support, but I hardly think Actiblizz has the balls to do it. Atleast not completely.
They will probably still release CoD & GH on PS3, but not delay the 360 release to wait for its completion.

What I'd like to hear now is Sony's response to this news, and to see if they will cave to 3rd party pressures despite the need to have PS3 be profitable from a hardware perspective.

What I don't expect is for this to change much of anything towards the Wii. At best, maybe marginally more software support, but nothing too significant. Its not like all PS3 projects are gonna be re-routed to Wii, because as soon as last year 3rd parties have been saying "Games made for HD consoles just aren't possible on Wii", and I don't expect that mentality to change.

[TJ Spyke]

If more major publishers like Electronic Arts and THQ threaten to pull support, Sony would have no choice but to cut the price. Nintendo has proven that they can sell systems purely on first party efforts (most people seemed to buy a GameCube for first party games), I don' think Sony could survive purely on their first party games (although they would do a better job than Microsoft since MS doesn't actually release that many first party games each year).

[KDR_11k]

So the PS3 follows the Gamecube in more than just sales?

[UltimatePartyBear]

The real problem for me is that new game prices are above my impulse buy threshold.  I'm sure I can't be the only one waiting for bargains on PS3 games while happily adding full priced new Wii games to my backlog.  Buying the expensive system is only the first of many expensive hurdles for a potential customer, and the only one ActiBlizzion can't lower on its own.  This is just whining and blaming the console maker for their own problems.

So, yeah, I guess it is following the GameCube in that last respect.

[vudu]

Activision is just trying to bully Sony into a price drop.  Before E3 Bobby Kotick predicted a price drop for the PS3.  When it didn't happen he released a statement saying he was disappointed.

Now he's trying to force Sony to do what will be best for his company (increase the install base) without necessarily caring what would be best for Sony (maximizing profit).

[KDR_11k]

The real problem for me is that new game prices are above my impulse buy threshold.  I'm sure I can't be the only one waiting for bargains on PS3 games while happily adding full priced new Wii games to my backlog.  Buying the expensive system is only the first of many expensive hurdles for a potential customer, and the only one ActiBlizzion can't lower on its own.  This is just whining and blaming the console maker for their own problems.

So, yeah, I guess it is following the GameCube in that last respect.

I don't think the "above impulse buy range" thing is unique to the PS3, 50€ is just as much outside impulse buy range as 70€ for me. Though it looks like the PS3 gets pricedrops more frequently than the 360 (may just be a "shelves look better when you're not looking to buy something" effect).

[Chozo Ghost]

Well, considering the PS3's "10 year lifespan" Sony can probably afford to lose a few developers now, and then when things start to pick up for them a few years from now then they can gain those developers back. Right?

[BlackNMild2k1]

We might have missed an important part of this comment.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has warned that the publisher “might have to stop supporting Sony” platforms.

“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. 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,” he told The Times.

“They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates are likely to slow,” he added. “If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony. When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console — and the PSP too.”

Kotick, who said recently that he was disappointed the platform holders opted not to announce console price cuts at E3, also noted that Activision had paid Sony $500 million in royalties and other goods last year, which “probably still worked out at 400 percent of the profit they made.”

Are they calling Sony out on being non-profitable? Are they just pushing for price cut for the console price, or are they really looking for a cut in royalties paid to Sony per game?

Sounds like Actiblizz'z royalties paid = 4X the amount of profit Sony made and someone is trying to rub salt in the wound while its still fresh and bleeding. Or am I looking at that wrong?

[Caliban]

It seems to me that the royalties are the real issue, but... if they start to pay less royalties I want to see their games (360 and PS3) marked down to $49.99(US).

[Guitar Smasher]

For once I'm not going to blame Sony.  It's ActiBlizz's mistake to be making games for PS3 in the first place.  They cost more to make, there's less potential buyers to market to, and they're getting raped in royalties to boot!  All while there's a legitimate alternative that's superior in each category (I'm guessing the royalties would less, but I could be mistaken).

Of course this is all pushing for an "in-demand" developer discount.  If they were really concerned about the size of the userbase they would be putting most of their focus on the other consoles, and only releasing the select games that would be profitable to do so on PS3.

[Peachylala]

This is probably just Activision fishing for a moneyhat from Sony (not like they'd need one to survive, but they'd need one to continue supporting Sony).  This reminds me of when Namco was all upset that their PS2 games were underperforming in 2002 and pledged to make the GameCube their target platform.  Needless to say, Sony acquiesced a moneyhat and Namco still gave more exclusives to the PS2.

Tales Of The Abyss sold less then ToS on GCN, in North America.

ToS: Dawn Of Fist sold more then Tales Of Vesperia.

I call it karma. Seems to be happening alot this gen.

[KDR_11k]

It seems to me that the royalties are the real issue, but... if they start to pay less royalties I want to see their games (360 and PS3) marked down to $49.99(US).

I'd like to see the games marked down anyway. 70€ is just fucking insane.

Either way, this is definitely a bluff. The HD market is small enough without ignoring the PS3, it would be unsustainable to make HD games ony for the 360 and PC. If they want to abandon the PS3 they have to abandon HD gaming altogether and make Wii games instead.

[Chozo Ghost]

I just don't understand why 3rd parties are so reluctant to abandon Sony and at the same time so reluctant to support Nintendo. Nintendo is the market leader this gen, but it seems like they are still applying last gen logic. Yes, the PS2 was very much the leader in its time, but its time is over and the sooner 3rd parties acknowledge this inconvenient truth the better off they will be.

[Deguello]

Kotick, who said recently that he was disappointed the platform holders opted not to announce console price cuts at E3,

Why would Nintendo want to announce a price cut again?  Is selling faster than the PS2 not fast enough for him?  Wouldn't a more profitable Nintendo make a more profitable moneyhat bearer?

[KDR_11k]

Perhaps he's frustrated Nintendo doesn't give out moneyhats.

[Chozo Ghost]

Money hats are the gift every developer is longing for this Father's day.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Then they better learn how to ask for them. Nintendo isn't just gonna hand anybody money, but they might hand you an IP and then provide assistance with development & marketing.

[Mop it up]

I just don't understand why 3rd parties are so reluctant to abandon Sony and at the same time so reluctant to support Nintendo. Nintendo is the market leader this gen, but it seems like they are still applying last gen logic. Yes, the PS2 was very much the leader in its time, but its time is over and the sooner 3rd parties acknowledge this inconvenient truth the better off they will be.

Maybe it is because they want to work with more powerful hardware and don't want to have to learn how to make Wii controls work? Maybe it's because the Wii has a different demographic? Or maybe it is because of one of the reasons they jumped ship from Nintendo so quickly, because they don't want to compete with Nintendo's games which are almost always the top sellers?

[Deguello]

Or maybe it is because of one of the reasons they jumped ship from Nintendo so quickly, because they don't want to compete with Nintendo's games which are almost always the top sellers?

I don't understand that either, because Nintendo's titles tend to be top sellers period, like in general.  Like say... Super Mario Galaxy has outsold RE5, regardless of the fact that it isn't on Wii too.  Pokemon will outsell FFXIII, despite the fact that the DS, too, "can't handle" it.  Every time I hear that, I just think that developer is either lazy or a milquetoasty little coward.  I mean Nintendo makes non-core nongames for non-people sometimes.  How can they not compete?  (Unless they are scared that their own bad reputations they have built after 3 years of dumping garbage on the Wii will come back to haunt them when people would rather buy something from Nintendo than take a risk with a third party.  Which is ENTIRELY their fault.)