backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 101 comment(s) - last by widcard.. on Jun 24 at 6:13 PM
Activision CEO says support for PS3 may stop is price cuts aren't made

The video game industry is feeling the burn of the poor economy as game sales and console sales are slowing for some companies. A few smaller game developers have been forced out of business altogether and many in the game industry are calling on Sony to cut the price of its PS3 console.

Sony maintains that there is no price cut coming for the PS3 console. Sony says it can't cut the price of a console that is a money loser already when it posted a massive $1 billion loss in its last quarterly earnings report. The fact that Sony is on shaky ground financially has not stopped Activision CEO Bobby Kotick from calling on Sony for PS3 price cuts and even saying that his company's support the console may stop if price cuts aren’t made.

Kotick said in an interview, "It's expensive to develop for the console, and the [Nintendo] Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation."

Kotick says that in the 2010 or 2011 time frame if no price cuts are offered on the PS3 Activision may have to reconsider supporting the platform and the PSP as well. Activision has weight in the market as the world's largest independent developer of video games with a market value of $16 billion.

Sony issued a statement in response to Kotick's threat, denying the claims of the PS3 losing momentum in the market. The statement said, "We enjoy healthy business relationships with and greatly value our publishing partners and are working closely with them to deliver the best entertainment experience."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sony doesn't get it...
By Motoman on 6/22/2009 11:11:22 AM , Rating: 3
...they have a revenue opportunity in getting their console into homes - after which people will buy games and accessories. Their console is a massive money-loser...that's their fault. They only have one way out...and that's selling the console at a price that makes it competitive with the Wii and X-Box 360, so that people will actually buy the PS3 and then generate revenue.

Or, they can just let it sit there and it will become another painful roadbump in console history...like the Dreamcast and the Jaguar. Although it has done better than those 2 already...




RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Hiawa23 on 6/22/2009 11:30:56 AM , Rating: 1
I own all three of this gens consoles & to me, based on my tastes, online included, the 360 is the best value, although the overall value of the PS3 I think is pretty amazing which is why I enjoy mine, but Sony has to get the price down to some sort the masses deem acceptable. There is rumor Sony is working on releasing some sort of stripped down PS3, & it's been speculated that there will be a price cut later in the year. Of course Sony isn't going to say anything, but this seems to be nothing but hot air from Activision.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 11:42:02 AM , Rating: 3
It's not really a rumor, it's simply common sense. 1) You don't drop the price at the behest of someone who has no vested interest in your company making money. 2) You don't drop the price, when there are ZERO exclusive titles in the pipeline. 3) You do not drop the price, in the middle of the summer (Unless MGS4 is launching). 4) Price drops, will, and should always occur during the holiday season.

That having been said, it's the prevailing opinion of most people I've talked to, that a price cut will most likely be announced to coincide with the launch of whatever big title Sony has in the pipeline for the holidays. I'm really...really hoping it's GT5. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Look for price cut announcements to happen no sooner than TGS in September (24th-27th).

Btw, PC is the best value. I have a PS3 for SCE exclusives, and a PC for everything else. PC > PS3 and everything else isn't necessary.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By chmilz on 6/22/2009 11:57:16 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
2) You don't drop the price, when there are ZERO exclusive titles in the pipeline

One would think that not having any exclusives would be THE reason for a price drop. If I can get every game available for the PS3 for the less expensive 360, plus a ton of great exclusives, then I know where my dollars are going. It's all about attachment rates, and Microsoft is mopping up Sony right now.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/22/2009 5:28:54 PM , Rating: 4
Xbox 360 only has Gears of War? What about...

Halo 3, Halo Wars, Fable 2, Perfect Dark, Viva Pinata, Banjo Kazooi, Star Ocean TLH, Forza, Project Gotham, GTA IV the Lost and Damned, Naruto Rise of a Ninja and The Broken Bond, Blue Dragon, Crackdown, Dead or Alive 4, Ninja Gaiden 2, Lost Odyssey and Tenchu Z just to name a few.

Then you have the games that were PS3-only which have become cross-platform like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid: Rising etc'.

Developers are starting to target both machines more and more so that they can maximize there customer base so they can potentially sell more copies of there games, which means more money for the developers.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 6:00:26 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, Gears of War is not an exclusive. Gears of War 2 is. My PC rapes Gears of War, and all of the other 'so-called' MS exclusives. I'm sure you like your games, but I like them more at uncapped FPS @ 1920x1200 resolution.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Belard on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 6:06:24 PM , Rating: 1
You lost me at the horrible joke called "Halo Wars". Even the name is queer as a three dollar bill.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/23/2009 4:03:25 AM , Rating: 3
Halo Wars regardless of the name and universe it is set in, is a solid RTS, it's a little shallow, but it's easily the most accessible RTS game available on the consoles in my opinion, A game like StarCraft even if its 10 years older is still superior.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Hiawa23 on 6/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 12:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Cry to those who know less about PC gaming silly. It's not like PS3 or X360 controllers don't work on your PC. Duh. And of course, what gamer wouldn't want games presented in the best resolution, frame rate, texture depth, and modability? That's just silly talk, right?

Leave it to PC gamers, to bring X360 sheep back to reality.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/22/2009 12:57:23 PM , Rating: 3
Your post is totally irrelevant to his post. He was referring only to consoles. Not everybody cares about super high resolutions or custom mods. Consoles are a totally different ball game, with some advantages and some disadvantages.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 1:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, they have absolutely no advantages over PC's. Take a look at the hardware available, take a look at the software available, take a look at the services available. Everything on consoles, looks, performs, and behaves, better on PC, additionally, you don't have overhead for the ability to talk to your fellow gamers, either via Games for Windows Live (PC version of XBL, it's free, and gamer scores carry over), Teamspeak, Ventrillo, etc... My post was actually addressing the lack of need for a piece of hardware that was intentionally put out with known severe defects. PC's, have no such issues. At least, not the ones built by people who know what they're doing.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By sweetsauce on 6/22/2009 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry, they have absolutely no advantages over PC's FOR ME.
There fixed that for you.

I'm pretty sure any parent will disagree with your narrow minded argument. Every example you gave as an added value for pc gaming comes standard in console gaming without me having to configure ventrilo, update graphics drivers, troubleshoot crash issues, or wait 20 mins for a typical install of a game (ps3 doesn't count, they use installs because it improves the user experience, not because its required to function).


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 6:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
Parents? Yeah, parents are really intelligent these days. Probably why you stumble when attempting to do things with a PC that even kids can do these days. Configure Vent? Wow, there's a difficult prospect (Interesting you only indicated 1 option, as I listed 3, and Games For Windows Live, pretty much installs/configures itself....strike 1 for stupid parents). Graphics drivers updates, hmm, you know, I'm fairly certain (in fact, I'm just being sarcastic, I know they do), nVidia, has a built-in update tool. Akin to Windows Update. That's right, it does it all on it's own, without you to screw it up. Trouble shooting crash issues? Well, if your PC's crashing, you did something wrong. Your fault. Not mine. (I'm writing this from my PC, which has been running just fine, since I built it...by hand, in January). If your PC takes 20 minutes to install, then well, you're not on a PC that's better than the current consoles. Plain and simple.

Word of advice, stick to what you know if you're complacent in your ignorance over things IT. If you want to get into a serious discussion regarding the pro's and con's, I'm all ears, but I'm not going to sit here and teach you about them.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By themaster08 on 6/23/2009 7:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
or wait 20 mins for a typical install of a game (ps3 doesn't count, they use installs because it improves the user experience, not because its required to function).

Sorry but this comment ruined your whole post.

First of all, I've never known any PC game take 20 minutes to install, unless you're trying to install an up-to-date game on 10 year old hardware.
Secondly, even if PS3 games install for, as you say, improving the user experience, they still take just as long, if not longer than PC games to install, and with many games it's mandatory, just like on a PC. Then after installing, you have to wait even longer for the newest version to download and install, making your point moot.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By callmeroy on 6/23/2009 8:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, I've never known any PC game take 20 minutes to install, unless you're trying to install an up-to-date game on 10 year old hardware.


What are you playing -- solitaire? I've kept my trap shut about much of the PC gaming stuff on this thread because most of the points made on PC gaming are relatively accurate (although I might not have stated it with as much attitude as some of the posts on here have) .... But there are plenty of PC games that take 15 to even 25 minutes to install. I don't know where you've been. Granted my gaming machine is 2 year old hardware, so its far from bleeding edge by today's top of the line standards. Basic point every game I buy my system exceeds the published minimum specs on the box. As a general rule of mine I do not buy a game that my system JUST barely meets the min specs.

Empire Total War -- while i didn't sit down with a stopwatch, I'm willing to bet with near 100% certainty that game was a 20 - 25 minute install.

World of Warcraft -- if you play this game and your system dies forcing you to do a re-install, by the time you isntall the base game and the xpacs and then patch it (which is relevant because you can't play unless its at the current patch level - wtf good is a game install if I can't play the game?) --- easy 30 minute process.

Fallout 3 - took about 15 - 20 minutes.

Farcry 2 - about 10-15 minutes (close enough).

All these games run fine on my system with medium to medium high graphic settings.

Its certainly not unheard of for a PC game to take 20 minutes....if you have state-of-the-art gaming rig you can half all my times at least I'm sure. But when debating I think its very dumb when people use high end examples for blanket statements. Simply because the majority do not buy or can't afford the high end.

Its like in a car debate , the whole thread is about ford versus chevy and who has the fastest cars and then someone mentions a Bugatti.....well duh...but how many folks can afford or have.....a Bugatti.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By elgoliath on 6/23/2009 9:20:03 PM , Rating: 3
That install time is made up by faster load times for the pc.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By themaster08 on 6/24/2009 5:20:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are plenty of PC games that take 15 to even 25 minutes to install. I don't know where you've been. Granted my gaming machine is 2 year old hardware, so its far from bleeding edge by today's top of the line standards.

I was only speaking from my own personal experience, I never said it wasn't possible. Perhaps I exaggerated with the 10 years old figure, but regardless.

My main point was the latter part of my post, which still stands.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By LikeLinus on 6/22/2009 3:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot. What is the life cycle of your computer? The Playstation 2 went about what, 10 years, and still could play ALL new games? Show me a PC that can last 10 years without costing you a considerable amount of money to continue upgrading. Games come out each year that require more and more performance. The Xbox 360 has been out since 2005. Can a PC from 2005 play the latest games that are out today at this wonderful high resolution you're talking about? Most games today would choke any computer that old. So you really have NO advantage if you're having to play at lower resoltions. Or the alternative is you're spending money to upgrade hardware. So the console is more costly over the life of use vs. a console. So a console will ALWAYS play the latest and greatest games, no matter what.

Then you have to consider the fact that the console is a closed system. It doesn't have to run all this other software to function correctly. You don't have to always update the drivers, keep it's antivirus up-to-date, install the latest OS patches every week.

Then there's the fact that you can just sit down at an xbox 360/PS3 and play with your friends. You can pack 4 guys around your 50" plasma and play. With a PC? Good luck doing that with easy. How many games on the PC support 4 people playing from the same box on 1 screen? That's what I though.

PC's not intentionally put out with known defects? You mean like failing 1.5 TB Seagate drives? Or Nivida or Intel chips with known calculation bugs? Or maybe it's the bad ATI or Nvidia drives that corrupt games or just cause BSOD and make your computer unusable.

PC's are perfect for games if you like playing alone and you have the time and money to invest in keeping up the PC. Consoles take almost NO effort and you can play with friends and have a good time. Sorry, Fat kids who sit around playing on their computer might not understand how that could be fun, but it is.

Run back to your WOW game and ventrillo all of them about how i'm wrong and I'm not "l337".


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By eddieroolz on 6/22/2009 4:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that PS2 plays all games because there's the artificial limit placed by the limited hardware, right? PS2 isn't a user-upgradable product, hence the developers must work within the limits.

Compare a PS2 game from 2008, like CoD:WaW:Final Fronts with PC version of CoD:WaW and you'll see what I mean.

Besides, playing with friends aren't that important for many people - I'd rather enjoy it myself. Last time I had friends over for a Halo 2 session was a year ago.

And the failing hard drives and such can also go on the console too, look at the RRoD of Xbox 360. That is a complete failure, not unlike failing Seagate drives.

Oh, and I am by no means overweight. I don't think Asians can get fat...I've tried. 6'0" and 180lbs, so I'm fine.

You got the closed system part right though, and perhaps that's the biggest appeal to the people. Nothing wrong with that fact, just different execution from PCs. And I respect that.

I hope you can respect us PC gamers too though. Calling us PC gamers fat, lonely kids who are antisocial and is an idiot is completely wrong. Most of my friends are PC gamers and we study Computer Science at SFU. My friend loves playing Devil May Cry 4 on his PC. Nothing wrong with that fact, so I hope you can respect us for who we are, just how I respect you for being a console enthusiast.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/22/2009 4:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that a PC is a better choice for YOU . Just because it can run the same game in some super ridiculous resolution doesn't necessarily make it more desirable to everybody. Case in point ... take a look at the Wii. It's the weakest of the 3 consoles and it sells the best. I have done gaming on both PCs and consoles and have enjoyed both. I played hundreds (if not thousands) of hours on Diablo 2 and Rollercoaster Tycoon. Nowadays, I'd much rather kick back on the recliner and play a game on my 47" TV than sit in my office playing on the PC.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By eddieroolz on 6/22/2009 5:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you read my post from top to bottom, you would realize that I wasn't forcing my ideas onto anyone. I just said that let's respect each other for our choices.

I hope not all console gamers are this illiterate.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/23/2009 12:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I apologize for that. I was referring to the other guy who was "bringing the Xbox 360 sheep back into as reality" as he puts it. I respect both types of gaming. It just gets to me when people don't know how to be unbiased when looking at things .... whether it be Sony fanboys, MS fanboys or PC fanboys.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By plinkplonk on 6/23/2009 8:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think Asians can get fat


Sumo wrestlers anyone?


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 6:24:18 PM , Rating: 1
LoL, PC's actually have more options for social networking than a console EVER will. EVER. You have 1 way of communication, I have 3 different types of voice chat, email, IM etc..

As for the lifespan of my computer, see, I put my PC together, so I know it's going to last a long time. You may be the type of less than intelligent individual who'd go out to Best-Buy and pick up that sick looking Alienware machine. But me? No, see, I know that Alienware is overpriced, hunks of garbage...because I research these things, LONG before I actually decide on parts and direction.

And yes, a PC from 2005 was EASILY looking better than 360. Hell, where's Crysis for the 360? Hmm? Oh I forgot, no console has YET to touch the graphical acuity, and physics associated with Crysis...or Crysis Warhead. Why you ask? Because both the 360 and PS3 are built on LAST gen GPU's. BOTH. The GPU for the 360 is a hybdrid that falls somewhere between the R500 and R600. The PS3's is a hybrid of the nVidia 7950 series. At the time of launch, the 8800, DX10 capable cards from nVidia were ALREADY on the market. Points to you for ignorance.

Oh really, so the 360 never gets firmware updates? Cause I know the PS3 does every now and again...and guess what? It doesn't do it automatically, LIKE MY PC DOES. God forbid, someone with some intelligence actually utilizes their PC the way it was meant to. Updates - Automatic, Virus Updates - You're a moron if it's not on auto.

By the way, you can plug controllers into your PC. And, zomg, you can also plug your PC into your TV. Holy CRAP! And...AND....the resolutions your PC puts out, would make your TV gasp and DIE. Hence the difference between computer monitor prices, and TV's. I'm guessing ignorance took over on this topic also. Cause you sure missed the boat there.

Yeah, except the PC defects weren't kept secret by the parent company for about a year or two, prior to the world finding out. Whereas, with RROD AND E-74, MS knew about them prior to launch, and willingly released them. On that note though, if you don't research into your purchases, you're a dumbass and may as well put a bullet in your head and save the world the cost of your existence, and the chance it might spread further into the gene pool.

PC's continue to have the largest base of gamers, in the world. Consoles, can never, hope to catch up, as long as PC's continue to grow and expand. WoW's active population, is greater than the amount of people who BOUGHT Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Active...population. Not just accounts. I've had conversations not only with friends of mine (and yes, they've brought their PC's over), but with 39 other individuals.

God, pick up a book or something, read, your mind is terribly empty.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By shabby on 6/22/2009 8:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes, a PC from 2005 was EASILY looking better than 360.


$300-400 didn't buy you much of a pc back in 2005, let alone one that could play crysis.
If you're making a comparison between the two at least include the price of both into the mix, that's where the console has the pc beat hands down.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By themaster08 on 6/23/2009 7:35:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
install the latest OS patches every week.

Umm, then what are these updates I constantly receive for my PS3 which take 30 minutes-a-time do download and install?

quote:
Intel chips with known calculation bugs?

Wow, and that only happened....15 years ago!


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/22/2009 4:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
You are truly an idiot if you think that consoles have NO advantages over a PC. There are lots of advantages over PCs. Standardized hardware/software and simple TV hookup is a big advantage. Not everybody likes sitting in their room playing on a monitor. Sure you can hook up a PC to a TV, but it's not as simple as using a console. Plus, all of the software was designed for close viewing with a monitor. You are right about the PC having better graphics and more power. However, that gap is a lot narrower nowadays than it was back in the earlier generations. Most people who get together with friends to play console games on their 60" TV don't care that it's running at 720p instead of 1600x1200. To each his own, but to claim that a current generation consoles offers no advantages over a PC is pure stupidity.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 6:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh sure, it offers some I guess, for those too lazy and ignorant to find out otherwise. Hard hookup to a TV? Is that what HDMI cables are? Hard? Really? It's the same goddamn connector for the PS3 and 360 you moron.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/23/2009 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's not hard to hook a PC up to a TV, but PC software simply was not designed for multiplayer use in front of a TV. The other user asked a good question that hasn't yet gotten a response. How many PC games support 4 players simultaneously on the same screen ? The fact is that both have their advantages. Almost every PC "advantage" you mention has to do with system power and graphics. I have news for you. Not everybody thinks that's the most important thing. And as others have mentioned, there's no way you got a cutting edge PC for $400 at the time the Xbox 360 was released. One final thought on this. If PC gaming was SO much superior to console gaming, then why are so many publishers turning to consoles and considering leaving the PC platform altogether ? Obviously, this PC "superiority" is not being recognized by the majority.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By eddieroolz on 6/22/2009 6:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
If I were you, I'd stop calling PC gamers idiots. You're making yourself look like an arse in front of all PC gamers.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By hyvonen on 6/22/2009 11:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
He wasn't calling PC gamers idiots in general; just this Morne idiot.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By hyvonen on 6/22/2009 11:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're such a dumbass with a superiority complex.

No advantages? How about COST? Good luck building a good gaming PC with $400 you'd pay for a PS3.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Hiawa23 on 6/22/2009 2:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Cry to those who know less about PC gaming silly. It's not like PS3 or X360 controllers don't work on your PC. Duh. And of course, what gamer wouldn't want games presented in the best resolution, frame rate, texture depth, and modability? That's just silly talk, right?

Leave it to PC gamers, to bring X360 sheep back to reality.

Morne

Really nothing to cry about. If I wanted my PC decked out for gaming, that would be no issue. All I was saying is I am fine with the consoles. The res is good enough for my tastes, & I am not sure how you label me a sheep for the 360, as I enjoy all 3 consoles. The simple reality is for many, the consoles are fine, not even sure why the PC even came up, but not surprised as it usually always does when there is a thread about the consoles.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By BPB on 6/22/2009 12:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when there are ZERO exclusive titles in the pipeline
Did you not watch a little thing called E3? Didn't Sony say that a Final Fantasy for PS3 only was coming? I think there may have been others as well. Plus, Sony is beginning to strengthen the tie-in between PSP and PS3. In time I think it'll be nice. I hope titles like Little Big Planet for the PSP will have PS3 tie-ins. Heck, Sony-Ericsson even has a phone coming out that will communicate with the PS3 and PSP. Gotta look for that article. Oh, here it is: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/18073.cfm


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 6:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
By pipeline, I mean over the next several months. As is usually the case, the summer months are rather quiet, while the industry ramps up for the Holiday seasons. Yes, I watched E3, quite allot of it. There's plenty of exclusies coming...um...in 2010+. Not a huge amount were revealed as this year, other than Uncharted. SOny has yet to let the cat out of the bag regarding it's holiday strategy. Which is why I stated, TGS in September, is a more likely date for a price cut.

Morne


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By elgoliath on 6/23/2009 9:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
The next FF game is not PS3 exclusive- it is coming out on the 360 as well.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By sweetsauce on 6/22/2009 2:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
It better be GT5 coming this year. Forza 3 is looking like a damn good competitor to GT5 so the Polyphony guys better get that game out soon. Did you see the Polyphony guys at E3 taking notes of Forza 3 gamplay? They are worried, and so should Sony.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By eddieroolz on 6/22/2009 4:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing is, GT5 is taking awfully long - too long, in fact. It's missed PS3 launch by what, almost 3 years, and its still not fully developed.

GT3 game out with the PS2 at launch, or was pretty close, so it generated massive sales for that console. PS3 just isn't attractive when there are cheaper alternatives that can play just as well as them.

I myself will always be a PC gamer. I appreciate the versatility.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By jabber on 6/23/2009 6:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
GT5 is nearly becoming the next Duke Nukem Forever!

My brother who has been a PS fan since pretty much day 1 is getting itchy feet over GT5. He's been putting off getting a PS3 till either GT5 or a price drop comes.

He's getting tired of waiting and feels a switch to the 360/Forza is in order.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wallijonn on 6/22/2009 7:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PC is the best value.


You're kidding right? You're comparing a $200 to $400 console to a $2000 PC and calling it a better value? 1900x1200 native resolution? Chances are your monitor cost more than the console alone. Your graphics card probably cost at least $200. Throw in whatever Vista version you bought, add up all the incidentals, and I bet you that your best value PC goes for close to $2000. Best value? I don't think so.

I used to be a PC gamer, too. Not any more, though.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By ClownPuncher on 6/22/2009 7:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you get this $2000 number? An $800 pc will run games at higher graphics settings than any of the current gen consoles. You could even plug the HDMI into your tv if you didn't want to buy a monitor.

Then there is the fact that console games cost at least $10 more than their pc counterparts per title. Toss in the fact that most people buy accessories for their consoles (hdd, hdmi, headset, Live!, extra controller, battery pack or charger). Now you have a console that gets usually sub 30 fps with graphical settings 2/3 that of the $800 pc.

It's simple, you don't need a $2000 pc unless you are gaming at 2560x1600 with 16x AA.

I will tell you where consoles win, though. Having friends over to play the more social games (Madden, Guitar Hero, Smash Bros., etc...) a pc just won't cut the mustard.

They both have their place, but don't go spreading FUD about them. People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By eddieroolz on 6/23/2009 4:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the versatility of owning a PC, you can get so much more done on a PC than a console can ever imagine..

Yeah, my $800 machine can outperform a PS3. Shows you how far PCs have come along.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/23/2009 12:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will tell you where consoles win, though. Having friends over to play the more social games (Madden, Guitar Hero, Smash Bros., etc...) a pc just won't cut the mustard.


Thank you ! This is all that we have been saying. There are advantages to each. You're right that $2000 is a big exaggeration, but even at $800 it's still much more expensive than a console.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By walk2k on 6/22/2009 12:29:52 PM , Rating: 5
*picks up Activision game
*looks at price tag
$59.99, the same as all others

What were you saying again? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and lower the price of YOUR product?

*crickets*

Yeahhhh that's what we thought.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wempa on 6/22/2009 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
You've got a point there, but the publishers already pay a fee to Sony for being able to release a game on their console. So, something is already coming out of their pockets. Now, they expect Sony to do all it can to make sure they move consoles so the games sell. Granted, they are still losing money on the expensive PS3s and they have to be intelligent on the pricing so that they move enough consoles while not losing TOO much. It just seems that the cheaper consoles are a lot more popular. While the PS3 offers tremendous value in what it gives you, the customers ultimately have to think it's worth shelling out the extra money for the added bells and whistles. Apparently, many of them do NOT.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By bhieb on 6/22/2009 1:03:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kotick said in an interview, "It's expensive to develop for the console,


It is not that gamers won't buy their prodcut, but that there are not enough people with PS3's that outweight the costly port to that architecture.

Any given game will only attract X% of all users. Dropping the price MAY bump that up a small amount but not much, not to mention now you are making less revenue per copy so the small gain may not be enough to offset the loss.

The best way to increase revenue is to either increase the number of consoles, or to pressure Sony into cutting the licensing/development fees. His statement was most likely aimed at the 2nd tactic more than the first. He is well aware that Sony is not going to drop the price right now, but this tactic makes him seem like he is a good guy looking out for the consumer, when in fact it will most likely be used as leverage for negotiating a lower license fee.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By omnicronx on 6/22/2009 3:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Because that makes good business sense. For those lacking common sense, the price of the game itself has absolutely nothing to do with the bottom line:

The fact remains the PS3 has a smaller user base and Activision is essentially saying if this does not change, it will not be worth it for them to develop for a completely different platform that a small percentage of users have. This is economics and marketing 101.

Lowering the price is not going to change the bottom line, and that is PS3's has a smaller user base and as such less people are looking to buy games for the platform. A single publisher lowering the price of a game is not going to considerably sell more consoles, nor would it make sense to lower pricing for a particular console, when they are selling just fine on other platforms. Furthermore even it if did help sell a few consoles, why should activision have to take the hit? Even a 10 dollar pricecut is huge, the chances that their decision will increase the PS3 userbase by 15% is almost non existant, meaning your solution is for Activision to lose make money than they are making now to sell Sony consoles?. How does that make any sense? It is not Activisions job to market the platform, that is Sony's job.

My guess is that Activision is bordering red for the PS3 platform, and they could make just as much money not supporting them at all (not to mention the time saved during development). Telling a publisher to lower their pricing is not a way to keep them loyal, a move like this could all but kill Sony going forward, as without developer support, you don't have a platform.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wallijonn on 6/22/2009 7:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Touche.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By someguy123 on 6/22/2009 6:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
so they should take another hit because took a hit before?

people don't seem to understand that if the ps3 dropped in price (enough to make a difference - say $50) they would lose massive amounts of money on top of what was already lost on initial launch. if they were to sell 3 million units during the cut, they would be losing 150 million dollars , and who's to say that this cut would be enough for increased interest? I think most people who are holding out are looking at the 299$ or lower price point....and this would absolutely devastate an already struggling sony.

it's easy to say they should just drop the price when it isn't your money being squandered, but right now, especially with the credit crumble, it would be an absolutely terrible idea to drop the price.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By wallijonn on 6/22/2009 7:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think most people who are holding out are looking at the 299$ or lower price point....and this would absolutely devastate an already struggling sony.


There was a time when if you applied for and got a Sony credit card they'd sell you a PS3-40 for $299.

No matter what price Sony cuts their PS3 to, Microsoft will undercut them by $50. I mean, come on, you can buy a Jasper Arcade XBox 360 for $199. The PS3 will never be able to match that. I've had mine for almost a year and I am finally upgrading from the 20GB HD, which I paid $30 for, to a 120GB HD which I paid $90 for. Meanwhile BD players are now under $300, so there is less incentive for a consumer to buy the PS3 strictly as a BD player; remote $25 extra; HDMI cable, extra.

Sony is caught between a rock and a hard place. First they ignored the gamer to concentrate on BDs and now it may be too late to get them back. The gamer pickups "Star Wars: Force Unleashed" and sees that the 360 version supports 720p, 1080i and 1080p. The Sony version only supports 720p. Which is he more likely to buy? If MS can solve their red ring of death problems the PS3 may be toast.

So, when is "Drake's Adventure" going to sell for $19.99? It was a launch title. Probably when the next Drake's Adventure game comes out.

Both consoles suffer from high game prices, though. Which means that many people would rather rent than buy. Other than on-line gameplay there is little incentive to pay $60 for a 10 hour game. Not everyone enjoys playing on-line, though.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By someguy123 on 6/22/2009 7:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
well, with the credit card deal sony partnered with creditors so they weren't taking a pure loss. i believe they were offering 100$ free with application before, so I think the credit card companies had a hand in it.

and yeah, sony just won't be able to compete with the 360 in terms of cutting price. microsoft keeps pouring more and more money into their console, and they can afford to do so. there is no way they can compete directly against MS in price, so why should they take such a hit that they can't even afford?

also, the resolutions available on 360 games are upscaled, with the exception of 720p (see the whole halo 3 debacle) . I don't know of any games on the 360 that are true 1080p. ps3 supports the same resolutions upscaled, but they don't market their games at being 1080p unless it's true 1080p and not upscaled.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Motoman on 6/22/2009 8:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is a terrible idea *not* to drop the price.

The only chance they have to make money is on games and accessories, period. People will not buy the games and accessories without the console. Therefore, in order to actually get to where there is a revenue stream, they have to get the consoles into people's hands...and the only way to do that is to make the console itself price-competitive.

Choosing not to do so only amplifies the fail.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By someguy123 on 6/22/2009 9:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
the problem with this mindset is that you're only thinking about your personal wallet, and about this godforsaken console war. if you were placed in the same situation, it would be absolutely obvious that you could not drop the price unless the manufacturing cost also dropped.

as I said, a large enough drop in price would cause an incredibly huge loss that sony cannot afford. i'd say the only way a price drop would increase interest is if it was a $100 drop. a estimated before that a drop would probably move 3 million units or so, so that would be a 300million dollar loss. where is this money going to come from, and furthermore, is such an artificial increase in demand really worth the 300million loss? no, it isn't. recouping losses through this slight increase in ps3 units is still just that: recouping. the 300mil that could've been spent developing more games, marketing, etc is lost on manufacturing.

there is also the fact that the 360, with it's incredible drops in price, is still selling at a rate similar to the ps3. the drops in price for the 360 created demand for a few months, but became irrelevant very quickly.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Motoman on 6/23/2009 9:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. As a product marketing professional, I'm thinking about how do I get to the actual revenue stream that has the potential to create a net profit. The cost of the console is essentially a non-issue in that case.

Look at it this way - NOT dropping the price on the console guarantees it's continuing failure and status as a permanent money-loser for the company. That is as certain as anything ever gets. Dropping the price to improve unit sales will certainly seem to be a kick in the @$$ in the short-term, but it gets you *to* the revenue stream. Not selling a console leaves you in the driveway, the stream far away...selling the console at a larger loss at least gets you to the stream, where you have a chance to launch your boat and sail towards the ocean of profit.


RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By Motoman on 6/23/2009 9:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, also, directly to your point about a $100 price drop, and where do you make that money up?

2 games. On the 3rd game, you're making money on the operation.


Just play...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 12:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Although this article isn't littered with too many fanboy rants; I wish everyone would just shut up and enjoy video games. You can get a PS3 for $400. That price is very reasonable in my opinion. The quality of the hardware and software is quite simply amazing. Think about it... Some people out there are spending 3 and 4 times the amount for their TV alone. Sometimes the amount spent on something like a surround sound system will outweigh the console by ten fold. It's a piece of electronic equipment; and it is expensive get used to it!

If you want to complain about something, start complaining about how new games are still $60. They should be $50 by now. But as far as the console itself comes, either pay the money for one, or don't. You don't NEED a PS3. You WANT a PS3. And if you can't afford one, then you need to change your lifestyle so that you can. Otherwise it's an amazing price already for what you get in my opinion. I'm all for getting the best out of my dollar, but sometimes people get into a frenzy because they think that they deserve something for nothing. Get real.




RE: Just play...
By phantom404 on 6/22/2009 1:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Most people dont compare similar features and prices, I'm not talking about package deals because packaged deals can be found for both systems:

From New Egg:
Xbox Elite - ~$400 + ~100 wireless = ~$500
PS3 Uncharted version 160GB = ~500

Xbox Pro 60GB - ~300 + wireless = ~400
PS3 80GB = ~400 GB

Xbox Arcase ~200 + ~95(60GB HD) + wireless = ~395
PS3 80GB = ~400 GB

And dont forget ps3 has blu ray.
So I guess sony could break up the ps3 and do what xbox did and sell everything separately and make it look cheaper to everyone.


RE: Just play...
By zinfamous on 6/22/2009 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
yup. this is exactly why I bought my PS3 way back when.

my up-scaling DVD player crapped out on me, and I wasn't about to drop ~$100-150 into a comparable DVD player at the time; so....I wanted to go HDDVD or BD.

When you compare the cost of a comparable XBox + HD DVD drive of that time to the compatible PS3 model, PS3 was the clear winner. functionality + cheaper. The PS3 BD drive was always higher quality (in terms of output from the PS3) than what you could get from HD DVD through an Xbox anyway, so that's the route I went.


RE: Just play...
By Hiawa23 on 6/22/2009 2:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
I bought all three consoles but honestly, the only comparison I make is which one provides me the most gaming hours, services & online value. I don't buy consoles to watch movies, & the only thing extra I bought for the 360 was a 120gig drive, so in my view the 360 is still cheaper, but again, I enjoy the value of the PS3, but at the price it currently is at, obviously the masses don't think it's this great value they are willing to shell out the extra dough for.

If Activision is complaining about revenue they are getting as a result of the PS3's userbase not sustaining them as successful as they are I wonder how well the smaller devs are doing. This is not good news I don't care what spin some what to put on it, & I don't pull for any them, but just enjoy what all three offers.


RE: Just play...
By sweetsauce on 6/22/2009 2:22:09 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, i haven't seen this argument from a Sony fan in a loooong time, it brings back memories *tear.

Cost of gaming on the xbox360 = $200. You don't need anything else. I'm sure adding OPTIONAL accessories to the cost of the 360 helps you sleep at night, but they are OPTIONAL as in NOT NECESSARY TO GAME ON THE 360.

The #1 feature to compare the 360 to the PS3 in is GAMING, and on that front the 360 is still kicking the ps3's ass despite costing way less.


RE: Just play...
By phantom404 on 6/22/2009 3:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thats funny because I was adding up and comparing them with equal features no more..no less. I own both and don't consider myself a fan boy of either however your response clearly labels you a 360 fanboy and you were quick in coming to defend.

It all comes down to what the consumer needs. If thats all you wanna do is play games and nothing more like try out demos or antyhing like that then yes the arcade 360 will do just fine. If you need wireless because your internet is in your room but your hd tv is in the living room and you wanna download demos, install games to the hd, media, etc..then you would need something more and thats when you can start comparing.


RE: Just play...
By wempa on 6/22/2009 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It all comes down to what the consumer needs. If thats all you wanna do is play games and nothing more like try out demos or antyhing like that then yes the arcade 360 will do just fine.


You just hit the nail on the head. This is the one thing that the Sony fanboys always conveniently leave out. I agree 100% that if you want Blu-Ray + wireless and you don't care about the exclusive games, then PS3 is definitely a better choice. You get more value for your money. However, if you don't care about Blu-Ray and are fine with a wired network connection, then those extra features don't add anything to the value. All they add is cost . If they were valuable to more gamers, then we'd see more PS3 being sold, wouldn't we ? Obviously, the majority are going for other consoles, so those cost numbers mean absolutely nothing.


RE: Just play...
By someguy123 on 6/22/2009 6:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
oddly enough, the ps3 sales are inline with the 360 sales over the same period of time even though the ps3 has no 200$ skew, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.


RE: Just play...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/22/2009 5:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Xbox Arcase ~200 + ~95(60GB HD) + wireless = ~395 PS3 80GB = ~400 GB


I bought the Arcade last year for $399, then I grabbed the Xbox 360 20gb HDD for $20 from Microsoft, then I bought an Ethernet Wireless adapter for $20 and I have been happy ever since, there is no way Microsoft is getting me to pay $150 for there USB wireless adapter when there are better and cheaper alternatives out there.

Sure the HDD is small, and I wont be able to install my entire games collection to the HDD, but I still have plenty of room for DLC and Arcade games.

So all in all I paid $439 when the Base model PS3 was about $800 at the time, and I've been happily gaming on Xbox Live! since.

*********

I did buy a PS3 a few years ago however, and besides little big planet the only game I wanted was Final Fantasy (Which is now cross platform) other than that, it's one of the best Blue-ray players out there.


RE: Just play...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 6:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I have to ask... Where in the world does a PS3 cost $800?


RE: Just play...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/23/2009 4:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
That was the price a couple of years ago, now it's about $650 Australian with the Xbox 360 Arcade sitting around the $300 mark.


RE: Just play...
By RandallMoore on 6/23/2009 11:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Oh ok, Australia makes sense.


RE: Just play...
By Hiawa23 on 6/22/2009 2:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't have an issue with game prices as most of mine are bought from Gamefly & none of them are $60. Since the console manufacturers make most of their money on software & accessories, I don't expect the price to change anytime soon, & I really can't complain much this gen as games were $49.99 last gen, & $10 more when I do buy retail really doesn't break my pockets. If you want lower prices for games then use the many options available to you.


RE: Just play...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 3:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon.com + buying used games that are "like new" condition! :D It takes no time for a game to drop from $60 to $ 15 haha.


RE: Just play...
By crazyblackman on 6/22/2009 8:53:59 PM , Rating: 1
You are making soo much sense...OMG,OMG,OMG. Is this really DailyTech?
quote:
If you want to complain about something, start complaining about how new games are still $60. They should be $50 by now. But as far as the console itself comes, either pay the money for one, or don't. You don't NEED a PS3. You WANT a PS3. And if you can't afford one, then you need to change your lifestyle so that you can. Otherwise it's an amazing price already for what you get in my opinion. I'm all for getting the best out of my dollar, but sometimes people get into a frenzy because they think that they deserve something for nothing. Get real.


You are making soooo much sense...OMG,OMG,OMG! Is this really DailyTech?! Is it really DAILY-360-LAND?!

Er...I mean DailyTech.


rather shame...
By zinfamous on 6/22/2009 1:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I really, really like my PS3. As a machine, considering all that it can do, it is a great value.

But I agree that it is woefully uncompetitive in the pure game sector. If that's all I was looking at, I would certainly not get a PS3. I've had mine for almost 2 years now, and gaming wasn't even a factor in my decision (still represents about 5% of the use on my PS3). I still think it was an excellent purchase (60gb, BC, 5 free BD at the time :D)

God of War 3 can't come out any sooner for Sony. But if they don't manage some sort of price drop by then, I don't see it being the console-selling monster that it could easily be.




RE: rather shame...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 1:28:05 PM , Rating: 1
haha, man just what kind of games do you play then?

GTA 4
Resident Evil 5
MGS 4
Resistance 1 & 2
Ratchet and Clank
Assassins Creed
Killzone 2
Uncharted: Drake
C.O.D
Prince of Persia
+ Every single sports title

none? I'll say that the PS3 has not yet amassed a vast collection like the PS2 yet, but that is to be expected. There are some great games out there, and some on the way. It's a constant cycle. I don't see any logic in saying that the PS3 is uncompetitive in the gaming sector though.


RE: rather shame...
By zinfamous on 6/22/2009 1:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Not saying they don't have games, of course they do. That would be a ridiculous assertion. The point of this argument is that there is currently very little reason to choose PS3 over an Xbox if you're only looking at games.

From your list, MGS4, Resistence, Killzone, Uncharted? maybe Ratchet? are the only exclusives. (excuse my ignorance). I own GTA4 and Assassin's Creed-haven't touched them in more than a year. Of course, you could get an Xbox and play those if you wanted, along with RE 5, all sports games, and tons of others.

Personally, I find the MGS games terrible. Horribly written, and about 5% fun play compared to 95% long-winded laughable pedestrian cut-scenes.

but again...I didn't get into it for the games. Mind you, a lot of the exclusives are considered great, and tend to sell well. With the exception of MGS, none of these are established franchises, which are necessary if you want a console-selling game. Considering that Sony lost the exclusivity of the real Final Fantasy franchise, it sounds like they are left only with GoW3.

The logic is pretty sound when you consider pricing and incentive to buy the console over another, when they both offer some 70-80% of the same titles, one offers a good bit more exclusives, and is much cheaper to adopt--from a GAMER'S perspective.

If you simply look at the number of games the PS3 has, you're ignoring the issue.


RE: rather shame...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 3:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
You make some good points. I still don't think PS3 lacks anything that any other platform can offer right now(not counting PC). I'm not really concerned with any exclusive titles on any console... I could care less about HALO, so Xbox really doesn't appeal to me. Don't get me wrong, I like the Xbox and a few games on the Wii. This is no fanboy war.

I think Sony has done a really good job so far with the PS3. Are they perfect? No. But who is? I wouldn't think that I am a minority on this, but I am very satisfied with my PS so far. Something to note, I also game very heavily on the PC and all the other platforms as well, so I do not have that much of a bias.

In other news... who is ready for some OFP Dragon Rising?!?!


RE: rather shame...
By Zapp Brannigan on 6/22/2009 4:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Sony's done a great job at all really.

To me, Sony's pinned all their hopes on Blu-ray driving the sales of the PS3, just like DVD drove the sales of the PS2. But to most people Blu-ray isn't the same kind of upgrade that dvd was to vhs. Plus, people saw how quickly dvd players dropped in price, and are perhaps ready to wait it out.

Sure the PS3 is great as a mega multimedia Blu-ray game playing machine, but it just severely limits it's audience at the moment. Maybe not if the price comes down in the near future.

and you're getting Dragon Rising for the PC, right?!


RE: rather shame...
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 6:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and you're getting Dragon Rising for the PC, right?!


Are you kidding? I have erased from my mind completely that there is even a console version lol! How dare anyone play that game on something other than PC!!


RE: rather shame...
By zinfamous on 6/23/2009 12:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
not enough people have the proper equipment to take full advantage of BD. (HD set + lossless/HD audio capable system.)

So they really wouldn't know that HD is at the very least the same improvement over DVD that DVD was to VHS. It absolutely is, but far better from what I've seen. (Assuming you're comparing a proper transfer ;))

I certainly agree with you: most people don't see this upgrade, and it's because they simply don't have the capability to see it.

It's a tough concept to sell--the PS3 needs to be successful in the gaming world, and Sony wanted to expand their market, appeal to another crowd. They did bank on selling by BD, but now that's over. I think they HD crowd isn't very keen on using a console in their system. Great machine, but doesn't really have that solid and unfettered appeal to one crowd.

DVD was a nice advantage for the PS2. BD may be too much of a focus for the PS3, but I think the real problem is in developing for the Cell architecture.


RE: rather shame...
By themaster08 on 6/23/2009 7:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure the PS3 is great as a mega multimedia Blu-ray game playing machine, but it just severely limits it's audience at the moment. Maybe not if the price comes down in the near future.

Agreed.

Blu-Ray obviously bumps up the price, but what does this more-so is probably it's processor.

Can someone please tell me, where has the Cell Processor in the PS3 become an advantage over the Xbox 360's tri-core processor, with the exception of Folding@home/Life with Playstation? Because from where I'm standing, I've seen absolutely no advantage this processor has given in terms of gaming ability.

I acknowledge this may be due to gaming developers not utilising the processor to it's full potential, but my point still stands.


Hah, I dare you Activision
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
What's worse, Activision pulling PS3 support, or, Sony increasing PS2 royalties for Activision alone, Sony yanking Spiderman and James Bond licenses, from Activision, and Sony yanking rights to all of their musical artists that appear in Guitar Hero and DJ Hero?

Methinks, Activision is blowing smoke. No more, no less.

Morne




RE: Hah, I dare you Activision
By rmclean816 on 6/22/2009 11:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
you cant yank rights to something you already own.


RE: Hah, I dare you Activision
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 11:55:43 AM , Rating: 3
Activision doesn't own the rights to Spiderman, James Bond, or any of the artists that appear in their games. They license those rights, from Sony. As such, those licenses are subject to summary termination, should Sony feel inclined to take this to a grudge match.

If you think about it, I'm sure EA is LOVING this. Only means good things for their Rock Band IP.

Morne


RE: Hah, I dare you Activision
By Zapp Brannigan on 6/22/2009 3:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry dude, not how it works.

If SCE decides try and make a movie out of one of it's gaming ip's, it'll try to sell it to the highest bidder, not just give it to Sony pictures. If Sony pictures is the highest bidder then it's win win but it's not gonna help it's corporate sibling and lose out itself.

It's just the same in other things, why didn't Sony just make Spiderman and James Bond Playstation Exclusives? Because Activision pay more money then SCE would for them as Activision can sell the games on any console, while SCE is limited. That's why you rarely see licensed games exclusive to one console (apart from Goldeneye).

No way Sony Music is gonna stop licensing songs to the Guitar Hero games or any other activision game. It's a decent revenue stream at a time were record companies are struggling to get decent revenue streams. They get money for old songs, they couldn't pass it up.

oh, and Harmonix/MTV own Rock Band, not EA. Sure EA publish the game, but everything else is Harmonix/MTV. For Sure, EA makes money out of Rock Band, but not as much as Activision does out of Guitar Hero.


RE: Hah, I dare you Activision
By mornelithe on 6/22/2009 6:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not how it works, I'm merely speaking from the overly caustic side, that Mr. Kotick himself started. Sony probably wouldn't do that, but they certainly could, and it would certainly mess up Activision. If they wanted to, they have the tools to do so.

Morne


XBOX 360
By widcard on 6/22/2009 8:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sony can drop the the price, and i hope they do, But games will always look better on the XBOX, it's a GPU thing. Let's just say Microsoft won this round. next Console please.




RE: XBOX 360
By crazyblackman on 6/22/2009 9:06:31 PM , Rating: 1
I hope Sony raises the price. I don't want to see any more of you retarded 360 loving idiots on PSN. Go play your 360s and we'll play our PS3s.
I'd be willing to bet that you will handing a big box to the UPS truck driver before we will. Yes. I went there.


RE: XBOX 360
By widcard on 6/22/2009 10:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's the right attitude. No i really wanted a PS3 but it cost too much lol. I mean who could pass up great graphics for such a low price $200.00!! didn't have to think twice about that :)


RE: XBOX 360
By RandallMoore on 6/22/2009 11:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to show everyone how not to be a total douche, or are you acting as yourself?

quote:
who could pass up great graphics for such a low price $200.00!!


hmm... on second thought, instead of making any more comments, I'll just sit back laugh.


RE: XBOX 360
By widcard on 6/23/2009 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
okay, ill put away the salt.


RE: XBOX 360
By widcard on 6/24/2009 6:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
the sequel to the popular original Left 4 Dead is only in development for the Xbox 360 and PC platforms. No development effort is in progress for a PlayStation 3 version.


Pfft....
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/22/2009 11:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
Don't expect it to happen Activision.....This is Sony you are talking about here....




RE: Pfft....
By Bender 123 on 6/22/2009 11:44:17 AM , Rating: 3
Thats what all of us old EGM readers thought in the 90's with Square and Nintendo...Or late 90's with EA and Sega...

If there is one thing Activision knows, its making money on selling games, if they are not seeing an appropriate return on their PS3 sales, it would be a poor business decision to continue supporting a losing venture and not move your resources to developing for the lines that make the highest ROI.


RE: Pfft....
By sweetsauce on 6/22/2009 2:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
Gamers will never look at it that way. They'll just post crap like "don't be a lazy developer, who cares if it cost more, just make better ps3 games blah blah blah" while being totally ignorant to the fact that it takes MORE MONEY to get the same quality game on the 360, all while MAKING THEM LESS MONEY than the 360 version. Seems like logical business sense to me to discontinue support for the console that gives you a lower ROI. For the CEO of Activision to say that publicly, you know its something his company is seriously considering.


RE: Pfft....
By crazyblackman on 6/22/09, Rating: 0
Whats really sad is
By Venomman on 6/22/2009 12:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Wii is still selling at its original release price of 279 here in Canada. The PS3 now seems like a bargain at 399. But the Wii has already sold 30 million Units so who cares about its price ;)




RE: Whats really sad is
By EasyC on 6/22/2009 12:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, the Wii is still selling here around 250...while the PS3 is 299. I'd opt for the 50 extra bux just to have the better system myself.


RE: Whats really sad is
By Motoman on 6/22/2009 12:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Better" is highly subjective.

I have no desire to have either a PS3 or an X-Box 360 in the house. We do have a Wii that gets a reasonable amount of use. And my PCs are the main gaming platform anyway.

...for the record, I used to be a very enthusiastic console gamer, starting with the Atari 2600...we had the NES, Sega Master System, Genesis, SNES, N64, and then when my future wife moved in, her X-Box came with. Fact of the matter is, any game other than "fun" games like GH and Mario Cart is infinitely better on the PC anyway...so I can't honestly see us ever bothering again with a console - unless like the Wii, it does something markedly different than what the PCs can do. PS3 and X-Box fail at that.


By neothe0ne on 6/23/2009 7:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think you might find that Sony is subsidizing the cost of the PS3 to you. At launch they were eating over 30% of the real cost of the PS3.

Show me PC components where with every purchase, I bring the hardware manufacturer one step closer to bankruptcy.

So saying you couldn't build a $400 PC in 2005 that is comparable to the PS3 is a moot point (especially because the PS3 DID NOT COST $400 AT LAUNCH : If you were comparing a $800 PC, then it might be more fair (and you'd find that the PC wins again).




RE: Sony doesn't get it...
By anonymousdude2 on 6/24/2009 2:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The next FF game is not PS3 exclusive- it is coming out on the 360 as well.


FF13 yes which is the main installment, but not FF versus 13 which is still exclusive. IMO it looks cooler than FF 13. If it plays anything like KH it'll be good.

quote:
Oh, also, directly to your point about a $100 price drop, and where do you make that money up? 2 games. On the 3rd game, you're making money on the operation.


If Sony would drop the price on the Ps3 $100 it would take more than three games to make up the difference because devs aren't making $60 of profit with each game. Assuming those games are made by Sony.

quote:
Sony can drop the the price, and i hope they do, But games will always look better on the XBOX, it's a GPU thing. Let's just say Microsoft won this round. next Console please.


FYI games look "better" on the 360 because the GPU renders textures better than the PS3, but the PS3 has better lighting. Personally I think they look about the same in most games and this comes from the guy who can tell the difference from 1080i and 1080p and the difference between uncompressed and compressed audio.

quote:
From New Egg: Xbox Elite - ~$400 + ~100 wireless = ~$500 PS3 Uncharted version 160GB = ~500 Xbox Pro 60GB - ~300 + wireless = ~400 PS3 80GB = ~400 GB Xbox Arcase ~200 + ~95(60GB HD) + wireless = ~395 PS3 80GB = ~400 GB


I wish that people would just stop complaining and just enjoy games. Who really cares what console it's on as long as you can play the game. I own a PS3 because I got the MGS4 bundle and I did some number crunching and the PS3 cost the same after wireless and other accessories to make it equivalent to the PS3 in terms of features. The PS3 is also more reliable than the Xbox 360.

Sorry for the long post.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




14 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki