McPhee Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 It would also be a bigger blow to Activision than Sony going by revenue and profits. Um, that's exactly what the guy is saying he's trying to weigh up. Are PS3 titles actually making money for Activision? Or are they costing them money? If PS3 titles are making negative profit (i.e. a loss) for Activision then how would dropping the titles be a big blow for the company? Likewise, if they are making profit from PS3 titles then why would they stop producing them? I really don't think you're in any kind of position to answer these questions, unless you have insider info on the cost vs sales on Activision's PS3 titles?
Choze Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 The only people being fanboys here are the ones that think there is some credence to what Kotick said and are trying to fan flames. This comment is quite old by news standards. It was a big mistake by Kotick but is pretty much just a slip up from him. Not everything said by execs are necessarily concrete or well thought out especially in some moments. Nevertheless Activision's investors didnt like the comment either. As we can see from profit and loss accounts PS3 does do good business especially as its cheap porting platform making a higher percentage of revenue into profit than Wii or 360. Its testament to the fact that nothing is really planned exclusive by 3rd parties anymore (unless only for Japan or technical reasons).
Dante Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 So people dont want to see Sony drop the price of PS3?
Choze Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 So people dont want to see Sony drop the price of PS3? I am sure people want lower prices for everything, including BlizzardActivision games and subscriptions.
Kirkatronics Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 The only people being fanboys here are the ones that think there is some credence to what Kotick said and are trying to fan flames. This comment is quite old by news standards. It was a big mistake by Kotick but is pretty much just a slip up from him. Not everything said by execs are necessarily concrete or well thought out especially in some moments. Nevertheless Activision's investors didnt like the comment either. As we can see from profit and loss accounts PS3 does do good business especially as its cheap porting platform making a higher percentage of revenue into profit than Wii or 360. Its testament to the fact that nothing is really planned exclusive by 3rd parties anymore (unless only for Japan or technical reasons). I still dont understand what you mean by cheap porting.
Pit-Jr Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 I personally dont care about a price drop since i already have one, but it would do wonders for hardware and software sales. They really need to get that Slim out there and relaunch the brand. Im sure this is what Activision is trying to push, but Kotick went about it all wrong. Also Sony really needs to detail the capabilities of the PS3 in their advertising. Herald the free online multiplayer, the Playstation Store, the Movie and TV store, and it wouldnt hurt to take cheap shots at the RROD
dwarf Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 I was thinking that yeah, thy really shot themselves in the foot by not advertising the thing as doing more than games.
Shino Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 I think the people that wants that kind of extra value already know about it.
dwarf Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Wrong, if you asked Joe if he knew that the PS3 could play DVDs, Blu-ray, store pictures, music and gave access also to free online gaming and a Sims-like application as well as being able to video chat without charge then he would probably say no.
Choze Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) True which is why they need to get to profitability so they can spend to promote. Many people who buy a PS3 are quite informed understandbly. But many who buy the 360 or Wii do so for silly reasons such as 'gaming response for the same games on 360 is faster than PS3', for example. That coming from a pro gamer. A simple thing such as cost has huge influence over who will purchase. Edited June 21, 2009 by Choze
dwarf Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 What, I've not heard anyone say that before so that's a 0.00001% worth of potential audience they may lose. I haven't seen an advert for a PS3 since the 'This is Living' shite when they showed Heavenly Sword. Part of the problem is that the PS3 pad alienates people, so if Sony chose to advertise the system that can be controlled via a normal remote then I think you'd see a significant rise in sales.
Shino Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Wrong, if you asked Joe if he knew that the PS3 could play DVDs, Blu-ray, store pictures, music and gave access also to free online gaming and a Sims-like application as well as being able to video chat without charge then he would probably say no. Completely missed the point. Does Joe want all of that you just described?
Josh64 Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Activision churn out shit, so no big loss. I have one game by them - Guitar hero 3, and although most people I know seem to love it, I can't bare it. I find it boring and shallow with the only saving grace being the good track list. Let them do what they want.
Sheikah Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Yeah you are right, I guess we should post dumb fanboy anti Wii and 360 articles that appear day in and out. Crikey...do you rinse your monitor with holy water every time something potentially unfavourable regarding the PS3 is posted? You're just sounding like a broken record with the constant rejection of anything but positive news to the PS3...it's really doing you no favours. Edited June 22, 2009 by Sheikah
dwarf Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Completely missed the point. Does Joe want all of that you just described? Well that is my point because if it was advertised as being able to do all of these things in one machine they could advertise it as having 'everything in one box' or something. Everyone has tons of cables and appliances in their house and this could compile everything under their TV. He does want all of that, there's nothing not to like about all of those features so maybe if they were advertised hardware sales would get somewhere.
Choze Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Crikey...do you rinse your monitor with holy water every time something potentially unfavourable regarding the PS3 is posted? You're just sounding like a broken record with the constant rejection of anything but positive news to the PS3...it's really doing you no favours. Did someone break your pram?
dwarf Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I thought you were against arguing without any valid thing to say Choze? Before you told people to not use 1 liners against you but it's fine for you to do it? On this occasion Sheikah may have a point.
Tellyn Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Many people who buy a PS3 are quite informed understandbly. But many who buy the 360 or Wii do so for silly reasons such as 'gaming response for the same games on 360 is faster than PS3', for example. That coming from a pro gamer. A simple thing such as cost has huge influence over who will purchase. Wii and 360 owners aren't the idiotic sheep you make them out to be. Most people are fully aware of the features of each console when they buy them.
Choze Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Wii and 360 owners aren't the idiotic sheep you make them out to be. Most people are fully aware of the features of each console when they buy them. Not quite. Its a popular business point. Obviously its merely a law of averages and does not apply to everyone. More expensive purchases depending on the means of the consumer almost always get more research. If someone undecided walks into a shop its unlikely they walk out with a PS3 unless they pretty much decided before hand. Unless £300 isnt much to you. I thought you were against arguing without any valid thing to say Choze? Before you told people to not use 1 liners against you but it's fine for you to do it?On this occasion Sheikah may have a point. Coming from you, lol. The old i am perfect, you arent mentality. Edited June 22, 2009 by Choze
dwarf Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I'm always up for a laugh, the odd argument, but if I'm wrong then hey, I admit it. You are never wrong in your own head.
Choze Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I'm always up for a laugh, the odd argument, but if I'm wrong then hey, I admit it. You are never wrong in your own head. As i implied above, look yourself in the mirror.
dwarf Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 There's no reasoning with you. When I look in the mirror I see an athletic guy, what's your point? I answered you anyway and you ignored.
Choze Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 There's no reasoning with you. When I look in the mirror I see an athletic guy, what's your point? I answered you anyway and you ignored. lol, proven my points.
dwarf Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) No I haven't, when I said that it was so blatant you'd take it as a victory, but really all I'm saying is that you aren't valid. I don't always think I'm right but on this occasion I definetly am because everyone on this board has said it before and you just can't accept that you spout BS and almost always get away with it. Short sharp answers aren't going to win you any lol points. I'm tempted to ignore you with that button because of this repeating cycle where you post opinion as fact, make dumb judgements and generally just don't make sense. The only thing you're good for is news posts because how can I take your opinion on board when 80% of the time it's fanboy drivel or company-allegiance ball-sucking? Edited June 22, 2009 by dwarf
Recommended Posts