Network now...NEWS
Activision: “We Might Have To Stop Supporting Sony”
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.”
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe responded to our request for comment by issuing the following statement: "We respect our third parties' opinions and their right to express those opinions but we will not be commenting on this story."
In a further update, Sony Computer Entertainment America told us: "PlayStation has tremendous momentum coming out of E3, and we are seeing positive growth with more than 350 titles slated to hit across all our platforms, including many anticipated games from our publishing partners. We enjoy healthy business relationships with and greatly value our publishing partners and are working closely with them to deliver the best entertainment experience."
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Activision makes money on the PS3, a lot of it, attach rate be damned. PS3 is the only console right now not being pirated to hell and back.
Kotick talks a big game, but an actual signal from him to stop development on Sony platforms would quickly turn into an announcement that Activision has a new position in the company open for role of CEO.
You're missing the point, the money they make off the PS3 is less than what they pay out to Sony. At least that’s what they claim. If that claim is to be believed, it does make business sense to ditch Sony as a platform.
This is about the money! Activision have obviously been left wanting! Kotick would you remind us all what Activision's revenue stood at last year? $2.9billion wasn't it?
Sony, as always have their own game plan that they'll happily play out regardless of how hard developers and users stamp their feet for a price drop. Sony will drop the price when there are good and ready. They've already cut the cost of the development tools, what more do you want!!!
Personally, I think that this a Italian style bluff, trying to force Sony into making a decision about dropping the price. Trouble is Kotick, Sony just don't give a shit what you think, your company is not and never will be the Ferrari of Computer games, it's more like Sauber!
I could be wrong and probably am, but it kind of feels as though Activision have been resting on the laurels of past glory for a while now. Maybe they should stop worrying about what Sony are doing and concentrate on their own short comings. If it's that bad go and make exclusive titles for Xbox360 then we'll all have a good laugh at Activision hypocrisy when they come crawling back to Sony when there are more favourable market conditions.
"Sony, as always have their own game plan that they'll happily play out regardless of how hard developers and users stamp their feet for a price drop. Sony will drop the price when there are good and ready."
It's not always good to stick to a game plan. Particularly when it is a badly misjudged one. It feels like Sony are sticking to it out of pure pride and arrogance. Maybe they're hoping the inevitable price-cut will pull them out of 3rd place, but will it be enough when it happens? I'm starting to doubt it. That would leave them fimrly in 3rd place, with no more aces up their sleeves. Other than 'bandwagon' motion control crap.
Who are we to judge Sony on their perceived arrogance? Are we not the ones jumping up and down demanding a price cut. Sony aren't here to do us any favours, they've a business to run, they owe us nothing!
I don't whether you can say that Sony's plans has been botched at all. We're barely into year 3 here in the UK. However, it's looking quite rosy. From what I have seen and experienced over the last few months Sony and some of its third parties people are finally getting their shit together. E3's showcase for 09/10 looked pretty good, lot of titles that will bring in new users sales.
So I guess time will be tell. We've only got Sony's previous track record to go by (PSone 102 million units over its lifetime and PS2 136 million units and still shipping to new territories!). This generation it's very clear they have less of a market share in light of stiffer competition than ever before (This has all been said before but these facts are hard to deny). If a price cut were to happen, Surely it's not going to happen until after the PS2 has been dropped from the roster? With Sony guaranteeing their machines for 10 years I would speculate that would be sometime next year or later this year at a push..
It was inevitable that after the popularity of the Wii, that the other consoles would follow suit. Arguably the next gens both have more of a technological advantage that the re-dressed GameCube, sure Nintendo innovated and the others followed suit. The last thirty years of gaming has been down to health competition which has pushed the technology forward. Having seen the Natal and Sony's Mo-Cap project in action I'd say that both offer something new. It'll be interesting to see what Nintendo's next move will be.
Who are we to judge Sony’s arrogance!? Why, we are their customers or potential customers. Perceived arrogance has a lot to do with what people think of the brand and what people think of the brand directly affects sales. You’re right though, they do not owe us any favours as such, but they do owe us, particularly in the UK, decent treatment!
Selling the new PSP for the same amount of £ sterling as US Dollars is an unmitigated joke. And as an example for you, Sony’s arrogance here has directly stopped me from forking out for a new PSP. They are demanding significantly more money for the same product - that’s ridiculous!
The more Sony hold back on the price cut, the more market share they are losing. Also they are tarnishing the effect of eventual price cut – MS and Ninty may well be in a position for a tit-for-tat price cut of their own by then. Ninty certainly already are…
Sony’s arrogance
Don't kid yourself! Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are all as bad as each other! FACT.
It's a tricky one! I'm not sure how you can say that we've been treated indecently.. The price is, what it is! On both PS3 and PSP. The exchange rate is biting us in the ass at the moment for sure.. but that won't be forever. I have never had an issues with the Sony prices and obviously neither have the people who've purchased PS3's with the £300+ price tags. It's not Sony's fault that you can't afford their kit, you must be patient if you want one on the cheap.
I don't think that overall, Sony have done too badly. for a start it offers a more sophisticated experience through it's services and features and is seemingly aimed at the more mature audience, compared with that of it's competitors. It's certainly not under threat, A third place to a massively popular Wii and Cheap Xbox360 isn't that bad. I'm surprised that the PS3 has done this well, Surely that prooves if nothing else the confidence that people have with the Sony brand.
What I took from E3, was that fact that the PSP-GO would be priced at $250 dollars in the US territories so that with current exchange rate is just over £150 which is only £25 quid more than what the Silver PSP-3000 and Monster Hunter bundle is priced at. I really don't think that's all that bad considering that Sony will obviously have to cover development costs. But those who really are desperate enough for a shiny new toy will most likely make the upgrade. Hence Amazon and Play trying to cash in, which isn't the first time. Just wait a while, until the novelty has worn off then get one.
I have to say though, That price advertised on Play.com UK for pre-order of PSP-go is contradictory. You just get an American PSP-Go from Amazon.com pay the import duty and still have change from £250. I reckon this has got to change nearer the time. I wonder, has a true price for PSP-Go for European territories been announced from SCEE yet?
Yeah, people (including me) may have jumped the gun with the pricing. But so far it looks like the PSP will go for about the £250 mark. At that price, I wouldn’t buy even if I had the money to spare and wasn’t sharing paper-clips at work in the middle of a recession.
As for Sony offering a more sophisticated experience (I had to read that over again, to make sure), who are you kidding!? What aspect of the PS3 is more sophisticated than the competition? The most important aspect – the library, is made up of mutli-platform releases and some exclusives. While the exclusives are great, I wouldn’t call Killzone, Uncharted, GT5, et al particularly ‘sophisticated’. Hardware is, without a doubt better and sleeker in design. Yet I wouldn’t call it ‘sophisticated’. And the tech is, well, harder to work with and therefore I buy all the big multi-plat releases for my 360 rather than the PS3 – because they perform better on the 360!
I think Sony have created the illusion of sophistication through marketing and the price. But unfortunately, it is the same song and dance but for a jacked up price and a blu-ray player tacked on.
No Deadly Serious. Let me qualify that "Sophisticated Experience" statement. In an attempt to avoid a huge MS vs. Sony argument, I wasn't actually talking about the hardware itself nor the plethora of games that have been released. The quality in both respects speak for themselves!
I'm 30 years old, I have Playstation 3 and Xbox360 from this generation. (as well as others from previous ) and the fundamental difference for me is that Sony's front end (XMB) seems a much more mature experience, everything has it's places its well laid out (in my opinion) and it doesn't push a whole load of adverts on my as soon as I power on and login. I like that fact that if I want to purchase something from the Playstation Network I can do so, knowing exactly how much it costs without masking itself in some weird point system.
With Xbox360, I really wish they would give you an option to a least minimise the impact of the NXE. The Asexual avatars are a bit of joke (in my opinion) and I don't like having their adverts and content shoved down my throat every time I switch the box on I have no interest in watching those dweebs from OXM or Jess Chobot (as gorgeous as she is!) jump around my screen(Sorry). Some people like this, which is fair enough. I don't! Given that I'm paying for the experience I just wish I could have more control over it. I have my 360 booting straight to disk to avoid all the content because I just don't find it at all appealing. The Xbox for me was always about grabbing the exclusives (at least in the first instance) I went in and bought the cheapest model. Mainly for GTA4 Episodes, Fable2 and the Gears series, but now I find myself with an equally ratio of PS3 to XB360 games. But it'll always play second fiddle to my PS3 because I use the PS3 for other things.
My PS3 is my main media machine, if my pc not switch on the browser is quick and easy to use, iplayer enables both me and my girl can catch up on our Beeb viewing without having to huddle round my 19" monitor. I use it for watching all sort of formats from a media server including .flac and .mkv streams. I also love blue-ray as a format (sadly was a little late for HD-DVD although I would have loved to have seen it in action). 1080p through a projector and 5.1 surround sound is an experience that is very important to me. I would use the Xbox for doing this but seeing as both consoles sit on the same shelf I really don't see the point in sharing the responsibility from both machines.
I don't think Sony Market their machines as being better than their competitors. I think all parties have been sensible in not getting embroiled in such petty fanboy-esk arguments. They advertise the features in their best light and the customer takes his pick based a on what they want to achieve and what they can afford. So for me, Sony ticked all the boxes and does provides me with a more sophisticated experience. Maybe I should have qualified that original statement with "in my opinion" following it to avoid confusion..
That said I do have issues though with the PS3, it's not all been plain sailing! I could well do without Home, at least it's an optional download. There is always the fact the Xbox360's party system for joining, host and chatting is far superior. And while I understand the need for trophies, but don't see the point in adding them so late with so many early games not supported. I've had both the console for roughly the same period. I haven't had any problems with the Xbox although I'm on my second PS3 dues to a faulty blue-ray drive and a nasty error 800.
I was always one of those people that always cursed the Xbox360 just for being a Microsoft product but in hindsight I think I was very naive . However having now run one, I can see all its advantages, it's such a powerful machine that I just don't understand how they can knock it out for so little money. It's been a phenomenal success !! PS3 does of course stand in its shadow, I don't feel however that's necessarily a bad thing. Sony have had a pretty dominant past, if nothing else this must be a humbling experience for Sony, which is alway good for those with power. The PS3 in my mind will always be the superior machine whether other people think the same is beside the point, it's just an opinion, based on the fact a get more pleasurable experience from my PS3 than I do from my Xbox360.
I hope this helps explains things a little better, sorry it was so epic :P
Wow, epic post! But I get where you’re coming from. I also have both the console in question but my PS3 hasn’t been switched on in several months. Actually, that’s a lie, it has been switched on – but solely for F1 and that’s only because there is no 360 equivalent. Though the games I do buy are wildly in the 360’s favour.
Label me as a bit purist if you must, but I only want to use my consoles for games. I resent the new-fangled direction companies have taken of trying to create an entertainment ‘hub’. This might make me conservative but if I want to browse the net, I’ll use my PC, same with the Iplayer, if I want to chat with a mate – I’d rather call them, if I want to watch a movie I’d rather go to the cinema or get the DVD/Blu-ray. I don’t need these features crammed into my console. Maybe I’m showing my age and ‘progress’-phobia – but I just want good, honest games from my games console – the rest you can keep as far as I’m concerned.
And that is the reason for my 360 bias this generation. It has a better library of games. XBL is leagues ahead of the PSN, in terms of facilitating online play. Multi-plat games play better on 360 (generally) and Sony STILL haven’t managed to produce a decent controller, in my opinion.
So from my, games-only point of view, both PS3 and 360 are about as sophisticated as a bucketful of rocks. Shame really, the industry has a lot of maturing to do but that’s a whole other topic…
I know what you mean, it's hard to juggle your gaming between one console or another and you are right about multi platform games. Ghostbusters : The Videogame and it's dodgy PS3 texture detail and poor frame rate is the most recent example of this. However, I don't think that necessarily think it is the fault or the limitations of the hardware, bad programming perhaps?
It has always been said that Xbox with the directx environment was always a lot easier to develop for. Sony's development learning curve has been said to have been much steeper than its counterpart, so it figures that games would suffer in the short term. Maybe you could even say that this one of the major pity falls of releasing games to multiple platforms.
Increasingly I feel as though I have the Playstation 3 for its exclusives rather than the other way around. A lot more planning and research has to go into to choosing what game for whatever system these days but I am pleased I have at last found a good balance.
I personally think, Home Entertainment is just the way things have always been headed, don't get me wrong, there still nothing like slapping a cart into your SNES or CD in to the Dreamcast and just getting on with it, but sadly those days are in decline. Since the CD and DVD has become the distribution medium of choice and now with the rise of the internet streaming and mp3/4, I feel it was inevitable that this would happen.
There has been a Eurozone price, but not a UK price.
Throw up a link Alex, I missed that one..
http://www.edge-online.com/news/psp-go-officially-unveiled
Well that makes things clear and mud.
So which price are we going for I wonder ? $250 which is about £150 or €250 which is about £210? I guess we'll have to wait to see what happen nearer D-Day I guess.
I'd like to think that the GO will be roughly the same price as the 3000 with UK price somewhere in the middle? Well here's hoping anyway..
Buy the 3000 and a big memory stick then.
Word is...On day this news story HIT...Activisions stocks DROPPED by some 1.18% thats over $1 Billion.
IF true? The CEO is the BIGGEST Muppet since Henderson said...I`ve got this great idea for a Green socket puppet!
PS3 made up 18.6% of the total revenue from consoles for Activision (that's Wii, PS2, 360 and PS3, handheld are counted separately), if they dropped support for the PS3 investors would REALLY want to know why.
if the publishers drops out it's sony that will lose money,actvision does not need sony to make money. They also still have blizzard and pc gaming with 360 xbox. It's not going to stop them from making money. Their shares may go down but it will only shoot back up blizzard is ready to make a move.
I have to agree.
As bad as they are - & they're one of the worst. Sony needs Activision a lot more than Activision needs Sony. At the end of the day, if Activision can get other publishers to sympathize with them, I think Sony will have to concede to their demands.
Surely what you would find is that Sony would throw their whole weight behind EA, were Activision to leave.
Activision - Guitar Hero
EA - Rock Band
Activision - Tony Hawk
EA - Skate.
Activision - Call of Duty
EA - Medal of Honor
So you have similar products that would have no competition on the PlayStation 3, so Sony would go hell for leather on them.
Sony wouldn't stand a chance of getting EA to back them further. I think you forget that former 360 execs Peter Moore and John Schappert are now with EA (Schappert originally came from EA) and both left on positive terms. Furthermore, EA has a distinctly American flavor to it making it a better cultural match with MS than Sony.
EA is struggling to make a profit and further supporting the platform that also makes them the least profit would not sit well with investors. The factors that make PS3 less profitable are consistent among all third-party developers (low install base, low attach rate, high royalties, difficult to design for, bandwidth fees) - not just Activision. If anything, I see EA shifting resources from PS3 to Wii now that they're finally starting to enjoy some success on the Wii.
That would be brilliant, & The perfect answer. It could also set a precedent to other "would-be" bully publishers.
Well I hope they have plenty of extra weight to throw behind Medal of Honor cause that franchise pales in comparison to CoD in quality and sales. Rock Band and Skate are fair comparisons though.
The Medal of Honor series has sold 31 million copies, or 2.2 million per game (including expansion packs)
Call of Duty has sold 35 million, or 3.2 million per game (including expansion packs).
So it's not that huge a difference. If Sony were pushing Medal of Honor, as has happened wit the last 2 Call of Duty games, sales would no doubt improve.
You have to take into account that people that worked on Medal of Honor during its height , left and founded Infinity Ward. Not to mention the last few years the Medal of Honor series hasn't done so well and the last two COD games have sold incredibly (I believe the 360 version of COD4 outsold Halo 3 that year, which is a huge accomplishment).
I think with Modern Warfare 2, if we count it as a COD game will really blow out the difference of units sold between COD and Medal of Honor. That's not to say there couldn't be comeback/resurgence in the Medal of Honor series on the horizon.
I know the Medal of Honor series' quality has dropped with the last few iterations so I'm surprised its sales have been that good. I still think the CoD series, espeically 2 and MW handidly outclasses the last few MoH offerings. A 2.2 million copy average is still very impressive though.
If Activision makes more profit on Wii/360 than on PS3 the shareholders won't be asking that question. The reason Kotick is bringing this up is because investors want to know why they're wasting resources on the 18.6% of their sales that aren't making money instead of using those resources to release more product for the profitable systems for Activision.
There are simply to many additional costs associated with PS3 development to justify continued investment - unless Sony does something to change that equation (increase install base, lower royalty fees, eliminate bandwidth charge to publishers, reduce cost of developing for the system, etc.).
Activision played the BULLY card before on PS3-Remember how Harmonix had the Compatibility patch All ready so Guitar Hero3 controllers could be used on Rock band? Untill...."Continual objections" by activision meant sony had to block it`s release.
Bluff or no bluff. This is still a big blow for Sony. I don't remember anything like this happening in the PS2 days!
Some of the Sony 'policies' just do not make sense to me. Charging (publishers) for bandwidth!? So if your game is hugely popular online, you see a bigger bill?
Don't even get me started on the pricing, in particular, pricing of the PSP in the UK.
I thought there was a limit to Sony arrogance, but it just seems relentless.
Bluff or no bluff. This is still a big blow for Sony.
How can it be a blow if it's never going to happen?
Because it could, potentially, hurt Sony's image.
Image is everything. These companies are largely powered on faith. They retain money for licensing on the assumption that things will be going well by the time your product is released, & people go way overboard in their thinking. People won't readily enter into a 9-month contract, at least, if they think something is in decline.
This is the blow, as intended. Actually doing it would be another blow.
Thanks for that Indrema, couldn't have put it better myself.
Looking at the money/profit involved, them actually doing it is not seeming so unlikely.
Sadly..There`s NEVER been a limit to any arrogance within the industry. Atari reached legendary levels. No one learned from their mistakes.
Both Sega and Nintendo failed to take Sony seriousily with the annoucement it would be entering the console market with the playstation and look where that ended.
Leaving aside the 10-year plan claim for just a moment, alienating developers with the most Difficult to develop for and most expensive console does`nt strike me as a great way to get the lions share of the market.
Nor does leaving the PSP to ROT as far as games go-untill you decide to relaunch another, over-Priced model.
Will sony learn this time?...Have my doubts.
Let's face it, who thinks the PS3 is worth £300? If Sony wants to sell over 100 million consoles like what it did with the PS1 and PS2, then it's going to have to sell it for under £200. Sony has left a bad taste in my mouth over the £300 pricetag. I still have a PS2, I want a PS3, but there's no way I'd pay £300 for one. And there isn't much to shout about when it comes to the games anyway. I agree with Activision, plus I bet every publisher in the world would agree that the PS3 is too expensive. Valve have basically dumped the PS3 and I don't blame them. But when you're a gamer who refuses to pay silly prices for consoles, you welcome comments like this and hope Sony gets its ass into gear and wakes up to the fact that hardly any of the 140 million people who bought a PS2 haven't bought into the PS3. Until the PS3 is £199.99, that's when I'll buy one.
I agree with you, I bought my PS3 when they came out and to be honest there has been a lot of hype surrounding it when you look at games like Killzone in Hi Def you can see what you are buying and im sure in the future there will be more games with the same class. I wish I had saved my money now especially when most titles are multi platform to look at they look no different on the 360 to the PS3. When it came out it was supposed to be superior in graphics and sound to the X-box, I had a PS2 and I think that now Sony have lost the ground to Microsoft, I wasn't impressed with what the showed off at E3 apart from Uncharted 2 it seams that Microsoft have all the big titles. Maybe Microsoft are afraid that they are already losing ground to Sony there may be games coming that we don't know about yet which will show what the PS3 is capable of. Anyway I would wait cos its bound to come down in price soon as more titles come out and also the quality im sure will get alot better well fingers crossed
I know there's been more expensive consoles over the years, I can remember the Saturn being £400 when it was launched. I think the PS3 has dropped from £425 to £300 so there has been a price drop in the UK. But we all know that one of Sony's aims is to catch up with the 360 and the only way they're going to do that is with a price drop. Some might say Sony also need to match the 360 for games, but I disagree. If the PS3 was £200, it'd sell 10 times as many, but Micro$oft might then reduce the price of the 360, who knows. In my eyes, the Wii doesn't have an amazing range of games and as predicted, new releases have dried up, more so triple A releases which has been the case with the N64 and GC. So if Nintendo can knock out a console for under £200 with quite a poor range of games, Sony can do the same. I'm in no rush to get a PS3 so I'm going to be as hard faced as Sony and wait for a price drop below £200.
Valve? do NOT like the ps3 hardware-find it a nightmare to code for compared to systems they`ve previousily worked on.
Price cut not going to change that. That ball? firmly in sonys camp-maybe they ought to provide more developer support, programming tools etc. Other wise? just going to see more under performing Multi-player titles on the machine.
Pointless listing tech spec`s IF developers are unable to get best out the hardware.
As an owner of BOTH a PS3+360 i`m FULLY aware of what BOTH machines are capable of, yet so often PS3 version is the worse one.
The PS2 was priced US$300 from 2000 to mid-2002. Adjusted for inflation that would mean around US$372.57 today. Sony sold around 30 million PS2s worldwide at $300. So really, what's so expensive about $400 in 2009 and with all the value it offers compared to the competition? you said it, you should wait. The price cut is coming that's for sure. But the answer to your question is clear: yes, it's worth its price.
Worth is an intangible variable directly related to consumer demand.
If everyone suddenly stopped buying gold, then gold would be worthless. So if the PS3 isn't selling at its current price, it isn't worth the money.
But the thing is...it's selling...not Wii levels mind you, but certainly at X360's level....so maybe the 360 isn't worth $300 or $200 either....
The 360's "worth" is also an intangible.
True enough. If the Xbox isn't selling at Wii levels, then one could make the argument that it's also "not worth the money" in comparison to the Wii. People do not, however, make any complaints to the 360's pricing, but consumers, retailers, & publishers alike; do vocally complain about PS3 pricing. As it stands, at 22.73 million worldwide units, it is in last place. End-level pricing could certainly play a factor.
This is how you gauge the intangible.
This is corporate bunk. Activision is just trying to get Sony's attention. They make lots of money from Sony related hardware and this business is all about money so they aren't giving that up. When the console price drops soon, this will all go away.
An obvious bluff. Probably an attempt to pressure Sony into a much-needed price cut. Activsion could easily make a profit without publishing for Sony, but they certailny wouldn't make as much. And why would any company want to cut profits?
Seriously, though, cut that price, Sony!
If his company hasn't made $500 million dollars off the PS3, then he'll actually make more profits cutting them from their portfolio.
Current gen games cost so much relative to previous generations because they have to hire an inane amount of artists to exercise the full breadth of Hi-Def. If the assests already exist for the 360 version, you've already spent the bulk of the money developing the game. It's still not cheap but for activsion, hardly a large investment to at least port any given game over to the ps3 and sell a few millio units there (and with Guitar Hero and Call of Duty, it's hardly a doubt they'll sell a few million) to improve your bottom line.
But then, look at it this way: Kotick creates a bit of a PR mess over Sony's (relatively) poorer market penetration, which puts that much more of an onus on Sony to finally cut the price of the PS3. They thus end up selling more, and people buy more guitar hero and call of duty games as they buy the new system. This was a very small amount of effort exerted by Kotick that could reap an inproportionally large gain. It's so blatantly obvious that there's no doubt it's a mere bluff -- a mere bluff with teeth.
Don't get me wrong, it's a huge PR stunt. If it wasn't, he say these things privately to Sony, make good on said promises, and tell the general public that it's actually happened.
If you read between the lines, what he's really saying is, "I've seen our 2010 lineup, and we're not getting any better. I'm now desperately trying to find ways to generate more revenue for the company; without actually improving anything on my end."
I`d add "Espically seeing as how Sony do not want to seem to get on-board (NO pun intended ) with our expensive Tony hawks game and motion sensing Skateboard."
Been bloody brilliant IF he`d finished with the line" Like the murphy`s....I`m NOT Bitter".
Thing is..Is Modern warfare 2 running on a game engine bulit from scratch? or just an improved ver. of the COD 4 engine?-Seems odd that IF it is....they can do so much work on the game and tell us there are 2 map packs on way..before game is even out.
It could be that to get 200 million from selling a PS3 title it costs Activision around 100 million plus (just as an example) so the return isn't that great. I guess he means that those 100 + million could be used somewhere else, maybe to release a new title on the 360 or Wii where the bigger installed base will give them a better return on investment, not to mention that creating a new game will mean a possible new franchise to milk for years to come so I don't think that scenario counts as cutting profits.