Activision threatens to stop supporting Sony with software

Bobby Kotick, CEO and President of Activision Blizzard has issued a statement threatening to drop Sony formats unless the manufacturer reduces the price for the PlayStation 3.

"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow. If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony," he said.

Asked when Sony titles may be pulled, Kotick said: "When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console — and the PSP [portable] too. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation." Kotick added that Activision Blizzard paid $500 million to Sony in royalties and other goods last year, which "probably still worked out at 400 percent of the profit they made".

Speaking with VG247, Wedbush Morgan's Michael Pachter feels that Activision's threat is nothing but posturing.

"Of course Bobby's bluffing, and good for him. I think Bobby's obviously interested in Sony selling as many PS3s as they possibly can, and he's not happy with their penetration so far. I think he favours a price cut, and would rather see one sooner than later."

Pachter continued to say that he thought "the PSP price is intended to subsidize the PS3 price cut.

The PSP Go was officially announced at this year's Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles with an October 1 release date and a price tag of $250/€250.

Sony later issued a statement on Kotick's threat to stop supporting Sony with software. "We respect our third-parties' opinions and their right to express those opinions but we will not be commenting on this story," said a Sony Computer Entertainment Europe representative.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

9 years down the road with Neowin

Next Story

UxStyle beta now available

71 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

considering that Microsoft is going to make the Elite their new workhorse at the same $299 price tag that the pro is now Sony might have a problem on their hands if activision drops them. not only will they lose money their competitor gains increased profit from sales.
it seems only natural that Sony would drop prices if not only this then also to get rid of old ps3's in order to make room for the newer slim models that are coming out.

Maybe this is a sign that sony needs to design a less expensive system next time around. This isn't a workstation computer, having the absolute fastest components isn't necessary. If sony wants to be profitable, they're going to have to gain some common sense.

freeeekyyy said,
Maybe this is a sign that sony needs to design a less expensive system next time around. This isn't a workstation computer, having the absolute fastest components isn't necessary. If sony wants to be profitable, they're going to have to gain some common sense.


Yip...If I think back on other generations, it seems the one with the most power isnt necessarily on top...

N64
PS1
Sega Saturn

Xbox
PS2
Gamecube

Wii
360
PS3
Just a few examples.

i'll wait until the ps3 costs as much as a ps2 today before thinking about purchasing one just to mess around with (think modding). this probably won't happen until the ps4 is around for several years. otherwise, i'll stick with my quad core pc, no wimpy console for me.

veegun said,
i'll wait until the ps3 costs as much as a ps2 today before thinking about purchasing one just to mess around with (think modding). this probably won't happen until the ps4 is around for several years. otherwise, i'll stick with my quad core pc, no wimpy console for me.

how much money did you spend building your quad core gaming pc ? prob about the same as i did give or take a few hundred and that aside my 360 plays some of the hotest games on the market and only cost me $199.99USD nothing wimpy about being smart , but being a smart ass is another story.

shortyg32 said,
how much money did you spend building your quad core gaming pc ? prob about the same as i did give or take a few hundred and that aside my 360 plays some of the hotest games on the market and only cost me $199.99USD nothing wimpy about being smart , but being a smart ass is another story.

I spent maybe 600 on my gaming machine about 1-2 years ago. I am going to have to upgrade it probably in a year or so. It's a quad core with 4GB of ram. Nothing special but it still plays games quite well. The great thing about PC's is that you have MMORPG's. For some reason the consoles are laggining in that department.

Price drop games!

Games companies are lossing far more money through "Pre-Owned" games, as only retailers profit from this. Personally I only buy pre-owned games due to their price, all I have to do is wait 2 months after release and I can get it for almost less than half price.

Quote from article:

Kotick added that Activision Blizzard paid $500 million to Sony in royalties and other goods last year, which "probably still worked out at 400 percent of the profit they made".

Well, if you are paying Sony 400 percent of your profit, it doesn't really make sense to develop games for the console at a loss... That really surprises me...

People in the U.S. with decent credit and want to get a PS3 for only $250 you can apply for a Sony Card and get $150 credit!
Just go to sonystyle.com

Personally I'm still waiting on a game that will make me buy a PS3.. I own a Wii, I own and XBOX360.. I have spent well OVER the price of a PS3 on accessories for both and my PC (I just bought a $180 video card last week for pete's sake).. But I have yet to see a single game that warrants spending $460 to play it.. Sorry, MGS was awesome looking and I love the series, but its not worth $460 to play that one game. Maybe once there are 5-6 games I really want to play then the cost of ownership may not seem so high.

You'll be waiting a long time I suspect, MGS4 is awsome but with the 360 exclusive MGS coming there is little incentive to get a PS3. GT5 is another awesome game coming, but with Forza 3 looking ever likely to kick GT5 to the curb there is little incentive and the list goes on. I do own a PS3 and 360 and I don't regret it at all however, it's my 360 that has the biggest (personal) library of games and the console that gets most of my attention. To be brutally honest almost all of the main draw cards for the PS3 are now coming (or will be soon enough) to the 360, so it's not really a matter of where the exclusives are but more personal preference. The PS3 is a good console but Sony have lost the plot this gen and struggling to find their way again, well that is my 2 cents take with a grain of salt.

So far the only game on PS3 that has made me glad that I own one (on the gaming front anyway, I mostly use it as a media centre, which is does very well at) is inFamous. Saying that, inFamous is probably one of my most favourite games ever. The only games on my 360 I've spend this much time playing have been Mass Effect and Fallout 3.

Can someone please explain to me why MGS4 is so popular? I've never played any of the previous MGS games so all I have is the game play, and I really don't see what's so great about it.

Well there's Uncharted 2 and Heavy Rain in the pipeline. I'm particularly psyched about the latter but I'll probably just borrow a friend's PS3 and rent the game.

But that's 2 games (3 if you add in the original Uncharted). Not a strong argument for the cost of the console.

It's all talk, can't imagine Activision or any other games house turning away from millions of potential customers.

Until the PS3 gets more exclusive J-RPGs I'll be passing. I was a huge fan of the PS2 because of its vast library of J-RPGs not found on the other consoles. I go where the J-RPGs go.

This thread smells of fanboy. Don't be angry because the almighty Sony wont lower prices. Activision has all the rights in the world to pull support for a console. Hey, I'm not the one paying for the overpriced blu-ray player. ;)

Cheers

GreyWolfSC said,
This is news, not a thread. Who would be the fanboy, Activision or Sony?

Aye, right. News, thread, etc. Close enough, right? lol.

Neither, it's just some of the peoples comments are.. well showing their favoritism. That's the best way to put it.

BULLSH*T !

- Activision stopped releasing some games for PS3/PSP already, no big deal.

- Devkit prices for PS3 and PSP went down (PSP another time already), so releasing game on those platform is now cheaper

- Developing Exclusives for PS3/PSP might be costly but Activsion should not sell cr*p telling us that adjusting already developed game for all other consoles to PSP/PS3 will be not profitable ! BIG BULL*, that's minimal cost if you developed game for other console(s) already.

- They seems not to know what SUPPORT means, it's not a PC where you have to make sure all computers will run it well, it is a console, well unless Activision sell as crappy developed game that needs to be patched constantly, but that's not anyone's fault but Activisions'

Summarize:
- If they talk about exclusive's then I agree with them
- If they talk about releasing games that will be released on another hardware then they're full of bull*

i really wanted to buy a PS3 to add to my PS1 and PS2 but games for PS3 are so few and what games there are out there i'm not even interested in. i cannot consider buying PS3 and be left with playing just 3 or 4 games i like, it would be a shameful waste of money. if sony cannot lower the price of PS3, at least put out more games! that way people like me would buy it even if its that damn expensive.

high price console + pitifully few games = no sale.

Dude the PS3 is the ONLY console with two 10/10 rated games.

It also has the best exclusives coming out this year.

And it has the highest game to rating ratio out of all the consoles, so I guess you like playing bad games.

3rd impact said,
i really wanted to buy a PS3 to add to my PS1 and PS2 but games for PS3 are so few and what games there are out there i'm not even interested in. i cannot consider buying PS3 and be left with playing just 3 or 4 games i like, it would be a shameful waste of money. if sony cannot lower the price of PS3, at least put out more games! that way people like me would buy it even if its that damn expensive.

high price console + pitifully few games = no sale.


Guess you missed all the multi-platform titles and exclusives over the last 2 years, if you only had 3 or 4 games to choose from you aren't looking very hard.

andrewbares said,
Dude the PS3 is the ONLY console with two 10/10 rated games.

It also has the best exclusives coming out this year.

And it has the highest game to rating ratio out of all the consoles, so I guess you like playing bad games.


Where are you getting that information from? Both the Xbox 360 and Wii have had quite a few games that were top-rated (10/10, 100%, 5 stars or whatever...)

andrewbares said,
Dude the PS3 is the ONLY console with two 10/10 rated games.

It also has the best exclusives coming out this year.

And it has the highest game to rating ratio out of all the consoles, so I guess you like playing bad games.


yeah i'm a bit eccentric with games but still PS3's library does not impress me. with PS2 if i did not like a game its no loss for me cause its cheap but with PS3's blue ray discs i cant afford to buy-try-and toss if i did not like it. there are no PS3 game rentals here in my neck of the woods.

andrewbares said,
Dude the PS3 is the ONLY console with two 10/10 rated games.

According to metacritic:

Games with a score above 95%:

PS3:
GTA 4
Little Big Planet

XBOX:
GTA 4
Bioshock
Orange Box

Wii:
Super Mario Galaxy
Twilight Princess

If metacritic 95+ doesn't qualify as "10/10" then I don't know what does.

andrewbares said,
so I guess you like playing bad games.

Yes, because PS3 is the only console that has good games. Plus its up to you to decide which game is bad or not. GTFO.

Harbinger said,
According to metacritic:

Games with a score above 95%:

PS3:
GTA 4
Little Big Planet

XBOX:
GTA 4
Bioshock
Orange Box

Wii:
Super Mario Galaxy
Twilight Princess

If metacritic 95+ doesn't qualify as "10/10" then I don't know what does.

Yes, because PS3 is the only console that has good games. Plus its up to you to decide which game is bad or not. GTFO.

Hmm. Odd that all three of those top 360 games are also available on the PS3. Nonetheless, there's always so much bickering over which is better than the other. I guess I'm fortunate enough to own more than one of the consoles, so I suppose I'm not as biased. Play what's fun. No need to get emotionally attached to hardware. Btw, this isn't directed entirely at you, Harbinger.

NeoTrunks said,
Hmm. Odd that all three of those top 360 games are also available on the PS3. Nonetheless, there's always so much bickering over which is better than the other. I guess I'm fortunate enough to own more than one of the consoles, so I suppose I'm not as biased. Play what's fun. No need to get emotionally attached to hardware. Btw, this isn't directed entirely at you, Harbinger.

Personally I only own a PC as gaming hardware and zero of the current gen consoles. I do have a PS2 and a GameCube and I do love both equally. I'm definitely not biased, if I were to buy a console today it'd be an xbox simply because it offers the best bang for the buck. If I had ****loads to spend on consoles then sure, I'd also buy a PS3 so I could play MGS and some other nice PS3 exclusives but thats about it. FF13 would also have been a strong reason to invest into a PS3 but its not even PS3 exclusive so whats the point.

For me its all about the price versus fun factor. XBOX clearly wins there due to its cheap price and massive game catalog. Simple mathematics.

Exactly, it's just posturing. Why isn't Activision knocking down Nintendo's door, angry at them that their console is under-spec'd for what they want to do?

By now it's simple for Activision to put its games on the PS3, their engines are already there (and they make it clear how they want to be able to re-use their engines and technology for multiple games), they just have to drop in assets and scripting. It's not like they have to re-code everything all the time.

It would not be wise for Activision's investors if they dropped PS3 support. They are just fishing for special treatment.

However, there could be more to this story. Perhaps it is due to system updates that Sony will have in place, such as with the motion controls. Remember how they said it was possible these could be used for older games? If Sony wants developers to go back and re-work support into those games, or for other accessories, maybe there is developer backlash. I'm sure developers didn't like having to work in rumble and trophy support into games that they figured they were finished with (some developers don't even want to release finished games, but that's another story).

I don't think we know the whole story on this one, but whatever it is, Activision is throwing a public tantrum for some reason. Silicon Knights threw a tantrum over the Unreal Engine in public, and who really knows why, when it seemed that others could get it to work the way they wanted.

Lol, with Wii's sales they'd never ever say anything to Nintendo about Wii's specs. It has a massive market share and its **** easy/cheap to code for.

Chrono951 said,
They won't stop supporting the console, they are making money on it and thats all that really matters.

Don't be so sure on this one. Modern high-caliber games cost as much as a Hollywood movie nowadays. And PS3 also has the most development costs of all 3 consoles. So strictly financially it makes perfect sense for a company to stop making games for PS3 and focus on XBOX/Wii.

I was at the store yesterday and saw ps3s for $400 and I was kind of shocked that they are still sporting the high price tag. Especially since xbox is so much cheeper but with about the same graphics quality and larger game selection.

It's cheaper alright. Until you figure out how much you're gonna be spending for the extras that should have been part of the box.

Dark Scizor said,
It's cheaper alright. Until you figure out how much you're gonna be spending for the extras that should have been part of the box.


Such as?

stifler6478 said,
Such as?


Rechargable batteries, decent sized hard drive, lots of people need/want wireless, etc... Don't act like this is a mystery.

stifler6478 said,
Such as?

It always baffled me why Sony didn't include HD cables with the PS3. Granted you can find HDMI cables for cheap, but it just always seemed odd to me.

bob_c_b said,
Rechargable batteries, decent sized hard drive, lots of people need/want wireless, etc... Don't act like this is a mystery.


I'll give you rechargable batteries, but the majority of the market doesn't need a bigger hard drive (hell, I'm a hardcore gamer that does a lot of downloading and haven't yet maxed out my 20GB HDD in over 3 years) and you are fooling yourself if you really think that very many people even care about wireless. Try again.

bob_c_b said,
Rechargable batteries, decent sized hard drive, lots of people need/want wireless, etc... Don't act like this is a mystery.

Well newsflash for you. If I don't need all those (and I really don't) why should I pay for them? If Sony where to make a PS3 with smaller HD, wired controllers and a DVD drive instead of Blu-Ray and sell it for $200, guess what, it would sell like hot cookies. Of course none of the above will happen (its not like they could switch to DVD even if they wanted to) and PS3 will keep being last on sales forever.

Dark Scizor said,
It's cheaper alright. Until you figure out how much you're gonna be spending for the extras that should have been part of the box.
Here the XBox is that much cheaper that you could deck it out and it would still be cheaper. The XBox controllers are also a fair bit cheaper than the PS3 Dual Shock 3 ones.

I'd say worse case scenario youre paying as much, but even then I doubt it would be that much.

All those extras being cut out wouldn't drop the price of the PS3 much. 80GB hard drives are not expensive and dropping the capacity will probably increase the cost of the system because less of those drives are manufactured.
WiFi chips are dirt cheap, no where near the $100 Microsoft charges for the adapter. You can find USB WiFi adapters for computers for around $10 which includes profit for the retailer.
Rechargeable batteries also can not cost too much more, especially for just one controller included with the system.

stifler6478 said,
I'll give you rechargable batteries, but the majority of the market doesn't need a bigger hard drive (hell, I'm a hardcore gamer that does a lot of downloading and haven't yet maxed out my 20GB HDD in over 3 years) and you are fooling yourself if you really think that very many people even care about wireless. Try again.


Nonsense, the wireless adapter sells pretty well for the 360 so including it is a smart move, and doesn't add that much to the cost. There is no arguing the value of the PS3, it's well worth the cost and has far more features.

Harbinger said,
Well newsflash for you. If I don't need all those (and I really don't) why should I pay for them? If Sony where to make a PS3 with smaller HD, wired controllers and a DVD drive instead of Blu-Ray and sell it for $200, guess what, it would sell like hot cookies. Of course none of the above will happen (its not like they could switch to DVD even if they wanted to) and PS3 will keep being last on sales forever.


They have that device, it's called a PS2. Welcome to next gen gaming where stuff like wireless controllers and large capacity hard drives not only add to the experience, they are necessities.

bob_c_b said,
They have that device, it's called a PS2. Welcome to next gen gaming where stuff like wireless controllers and large capacity hard drives not only add to the experience, they are necessities.


Except, they aren't necessities. You're deluded if you think the market cares about that stuff. If they did, the PS3 would be selling better.

Indeed. Wireless pads mean nothing to me. I use my Xbox with a wired pad whenever the batteries go flat and I've not got any spares in the house, and it makes not a shred of difference to me.

stifler6478 said,
Except, they aren't necessities. You're deluded if you think the market cares about that stuff. If they did, the PS3 would be selling better.


Then explain the popularity of the recharging stations and wireless adapter for the 360? The SP3 doesn't sell as well because Sony hasn't really done a good job showing all you get with it, many people assume the console still needs many accessories in addition to the cost, they need to clear that up.

bob_c_b said,
Then explain the popularity of the recharging stations and wireless adapter for the 360? The SP3 doesn't sell as well because Sony hasn't really done a good job showing all you get with it, many people assume the console still needs many accessories in addition to the cost, they need to clear that up.


Please show me where you've found out that recharging stations and wireless adapters are popular sales and then I'd be glad to address that question. I'm fairly certain the wireless adapter isn't selling well because of it's price point, but if you have solid evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Face it, the PS3 isn't selling that well because it's price is too high because it has a bunch of crap people don't care about.

Although I will agree that the PS3 has a few things built in that the XBox does not have (Wireless controller being the only one I give 2 ****s about), my point is that it is STILL priced very high. Meanwhile the XBox and the Wii have seen price cuts. Sony is kidding themselves.

If they did stop, the 360 and wii are so large they would still turn a profit. I doubt they would, but I do not see why not. PS3 can't make them that much money.

Yeah, but why would they want less money? The engines are already up and running on the PS3. They'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater at this point.

Well, I wonder how much it costs to develop on the PS3 vs how much they sell. I buy all my games for the Xbox and use the PS3 for grand turismo and blu rays.

They don't develop "for the PS3", they develop assets for an engine that exists already on PS3 and on 360. If they make modifications to the engine, it is usually in a library that would be the same on both systems.

Just to be sure, they're talking about Activision not EA. And I agree, there would still be substantial costs in developing for the PS3. It's not a one off payment to get the engine up and running.

No, but it's more of an investment to make that initial game + engine than it is to make a sequel based on the same engine. Most of the technical hurdles are out of the way.

But if they're not making much money compared to other platforms, whats the point? They could just re-allocate staff and resources to developing for Wii/360 and make (possibly) even more money on those platforms.

But they would also be making it less tempting for people to wait for used copies.

The previous generation had $40 games, topping out at $50. This generation, they start at $50, although $60 is more common, and they go higher for higher profile titles. Maybe the reason the used market is a bigger deal this generation is because they made it more attractive by raising game prices.

roadwarrior said,
If they drop the price and sell more units, then they would be losing even more money on it than they are now. Economics 101.

Read my comment again. I said "If Sony COULD" meaning they are not able to at the present time.

roadwarrior said,
If they drop the price and sell more units, then they would be losing even more money on it than they are now. Economics 101.

Right. So you are saying that one of the most important CEOs of the gaming industry is talking out of his ass?

"Economics 101". Goddamn, now that's hilarious.

roadwarrior said,
If they drop the price and sell more units, then they would be losing even more money on it than they are now. Economics 101.

Never heard of short term losses for long term gains? That is textbook Economics 101.

roadwarrior said,
If they drop the price and sell more units, then they would be losing even more money on it than they are now. Economics 101.


If they drop the price and then sell more units, they would make up the lost revenue in price with volume of units sold. Plus, they would increase their installed user base, making it more attractive for developers to develop on their platform. I'm sure smarter people than me are working on this over at Sony, but it seems logical to me.

roadwarrior said,
If they drop the price and sell more units, then they would be losing even more money on it than they are now. Economics 101.

Which you either didn't pay attention to or didn't take. If Sony lowers the price of their console they do the following:
Allow more consumers to purchase PS3 games which in turn increases the profit for companies like AB to continue paying ridiculous royalites. The end result is that Sony lowers their profits in one area to retain or gain profits in another. The alternative is to allow companies like AB to stop producing games for Sony which will reduce demand for PS3, Reduce Royalities for Sony, and strengthen the competition. You = not a good business person.