Activision Blizzard Considers Bailing on PS3

I'm surprised they haven't already. I guess they're still holding out hope that the PS3, will increase it's user base. Yeah, good luck with that.

There was less original xbox's sold in 4 years then there was PS3 sold in now their 3rd year.

This doesn't really make much sense though, seeing as Activision has already done the hard work of porting the game engines to the PS3 for COD, etc. so its not like a new port is extremely hard

Sony was amazing with the PS1 and PS2 however seems to have lost a lot with the PS3 considering that PS2 sells are so close behind the PS3 with less then 20,000 being the difference. It is about time sony full realized their mistake, its the game cube of sony so far.

Sony wasn't amazing with the PS2 they were first to market giving the the same edge that the Xbox 360 has now. The PS2 was plagued with hardware problems(disc read error anyone?) just as the xbox 360 has now. The problem is: the xbox 360 is comparable graphic wise to the PS3 and alot of people don't care about blu ray. Why pay extra money for comparable graphics only. Sony needs their killer app. Yes, I know there are good games but there is nothing that appeals to the level of Halo 3, like it or hate it sells. Sony needed Final Fantasy 13 exclusivity, but oh well.

this made my day!!

Sony may gain a lot of momentum if they would just unlock the system so when linux or any other system runs it uses the full power.
Also if they would tailor there XMD to the players(like 360, each controller logs in) and some other things. They may want to bring out new development tools somewhere along the lines of a pc. Thats why 360 is doing so well with developers. You might think i'm crazy but I believe it will go along way.

When Sony came out with the PS1 and PS2 it offered new ways for gameplay from dual anolog control sticks to vibrating controllers and pressure sensitive buttons. Plus graphics to par. PS1 had a great library, PS2 was the first console to offer an expansion slot for hardrive, and a usb port. Things like eyetoy helped the PS2 along .

Now the PS3, it offers nothing new other than beefed up hardware. It's pretty much a PS2 with better graphics. And no you can't say that about Xbox and 360 since 360 beefed online play way better than original xbox.

They only and I repeat only thing Sony needs to do...drumroll please...is cut prices. I mean game developers don't care that your hardware supports blu-ray. They care about how many games their selling on your console. I still to this day don't get why Sony doesn't cut prices. I mean if blu-ray is the factor that is driving the price up then make a system without blu-ray and slash the price (I don't know if that is possible or not). I bet most customer rather have a cheaper (price) PS3 then one with blu-ray (although I do know some people who bought a PS3 just because of blu-ray). Grahpically, the PS3 is more powerful then the Xbox360, but not one will ever know this if game developers don't want to develop for your overpriced system. I think no amount of unlocking or other goodies that sony might offer would compare to a price drop.

cutting price is one thing. Keeping blu-ray is a must!, it would be like having a PS2 without a DVD player. I think right now Sony will benefit from just scrapping the ps3 and work on a whole new unit or better psp or something because right now nintendo is dominating with both wii and DS

I bought both systems and have to say I spent more money on 360 accesories than the PS3 system that comes with wifi and blu ray player, I agree with the price cut for Sony its is just the wrong time in this economy for there high price point. With the 360 maxed out for performance the PS3 would be in great position in conjunction with price cut in the long run when God of War 3 comes out next year.

They should included the PS3 as one of the biggest console flops of all time. Every successful console in history was based on the game content, not on a gimmick like Blue-Ray. Next time Sony should bet on the games and not their crap proprietary technology. The only reason why blue-ray won was because the PS3.

Who actually used their PS2 as their sole DVD player? I'm sure there were a few out there...but I'm sure most people that had a PS2 had a stand alone DVD player.

Blu-ray didn't only win because of the PS3. I smell someone in denial still that the HD-DVD is gone. Blu-ray is far superior to HD-DVD. I own a PS3 and I have no problems with it.

I believe you are correct..but only partially...it had more to do with selling DRM to the movie companies than anyhing else. Sony made the movie houses believe that their BR was going to prevent movie pirating. The major movie studios believe that BS and went along with it and now we only have Blue Ray for movies.
Of course now Blue ray movies are so expensive that most people don't buy them and they blame piracy because their format is to cost prohibitive for most users.

sony is stupid thehy need to drop the price 150 bucks or at least 100


ps3 would sell like hotcakes if it was 249

I smell YOUR denial (and ignorance). HD-DVD was superior in every way to Blu-Ray. Go check your facts and compare every feature of both formats. Features and technology involved had little to do with which format prevailed. Studios essentially decided which one they wanted. And with PS3 about to come they assumed it would sell as much as PS1/PS2 did. Well they were wrong on that one.

On-topic: Every game studio with a sense will eventually do what Activision will/might do. PS3 is massively harder to code for compared to Wii and XBOX which leads to much higher production costs.

I guess Sony was wrong when they said everyone will be upgrading from a Wii to a PS3

It's not even that the ps3 is Sony's gamecube. The thing with ps3 is that it's a lot harder to code for than the 360 and wii.Along with bad sales it also costs a company more to port to ps3 because of this complication in architecture.

oh FUCKING BULLSHIT

maybe ACTIVISION SHOULD LOWER THEIR PRICES FOR THEIR GAMES... fucking hypocrits... DO YOU GUYS EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY'RE CHARGING FOR THEIR NEXT MILLION GUITAR HERO EXPANSIONS PACKS DUE THIS YEAR? gh5 is supposed to be $200! THATS 20 MORE THAN GHWT

this is bullshit, if anything, its that ps3 owners are too smart to buy this bs. of course i dont own a ps3, pc all the way for me =] im glad we dont have their shit games on pc

From what I understand their were trade offs between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with neither format being declared to be better. HD-DVD had less storage but was harder to wreck with a scratch (more forgiving) while Blu-Ray cost a little more, had a lot more storage, but was a little more delicate.

yada yada yada. To all Sony haters, STFU already.

go hug ur 360 and shut ur hoe. jesus christ.

I dont give a crap about Activision, they make nothing but garbage. GH ? no thanks. its just another copy of Guitar freaks from Konami. and they're so full of it. kiss my ass.

I know Sony is making a loss with every PS3 being made and that explains the high cost but they really should reconsider the pricing despite the fact. If they could increase the sales of the consoles they can make more sales on accessories and games. Perhaps another alternative would be to keep the console price as is and simply bundle 5 older but great exclusive games with it with no extra charge this may be enough to attract more consumers.

THe ps3 and xbox 360 cost the same after you factor in all the acessories you need like wifi. Only idiots buy a 360. More expensive and higher failure rates plus most xbox "exclusives" are almost always ported to the pc

I do realize that the recent gaming trend has shifted to more interactive and family oriented games, but I for one aren't buying into that.

I never really liked interactive/family games, I took them as not too practical. Probably the same reason I never liked the Wii - it was a cool gimmick for two weeks, and after that I didn't want to play it.

Maybe I'm just a hardcore gamer at heart. I'd rather play intense FPS or really complex and innovative RPG than play interactive games like Wii Sports.

And what exactly does a gamer gain with a PS3 over an XBOX? (assuming blu-ray movies are not something he watches). Why should I pay almost double the price for the same games? Only idiots buy a PS3.

I wonder why sombody doesn't make it easier to code for the PS3. That seems to be the biggest complaint. So why hasn't anybody developed a 3rd party API or something?

Aren't devolpers moving to the ps3 because of the performance? most devs say that the xbox360 is already maxed out on it's potental while the ps3 is no where near the limit yet

It has to do with funding from a Publisher. Publishers don't like to lose money, so they contract developers to create games that will generate the most revenue. Not only does the PS3 SDK require more programmers as most comments pointed out, but the publishers incur the extra overage of buying and pressing Bluray discs for PS3 games (which is a large expense because of the technology and Bluray royalties). They like DVDs because they are cheap - so publishers would still likely favor Xbox and Wii games if PS3 sales did improve.

I read on TOm's back in March that the PS3 cost $468 (or something) US dollars to manufacture and assemble (80GB i think), so I don't think we'll ever see a price drop greater than $100.

As for the 360 reaching it's graphics potential - developers (specifically coders) don't really care about quality of graphics, only artists/designers and modelers do. So coders would still prefer the 360/Wii over the more capable PS3 dev environment.

It's so easy for some dweeb sitting in his living room to say what Sony should do, which is the impression I get from reading these inane comments.

Here's a reality check - Sony is the only console maker selling their machine for less than it costs to make it. Of the three, they are the only one that is under priced. To tell them they need to lose even more money with each console sale is purely idiotic, because it costs you nothing to say it, but it would cost them a lot to do it.

The reality is, the PS3 is still selling over 100,000 units a month, even at $399. If Activision doesn't have the programming talent to make games for it, that's an incentive for other makers since it leaves an opening. Also, costs for components DO go down, and Sony WILL lower the price when they do. Do you really think Activision will walk away from Sony knowing this? I don't, but if they do, they'll come walking back.

Also, ask yourself, would the $#itbox-360 sell as well as the Sony if it were selling for $399??? Clearly no. So, there are a lot of people that understand the value Sony offers, and the superiority of the product and services. Considering Sony really has weak competition - the Wii is a joke and really for a different market, and the $#hitbox-360 is an unreliable piece of junk with slightly inferior hardware capabilities, and a cost associated with going online, it's clear Sony is in a really good situation.

Their two problems - cost, and learning curve by programmers are both resolved by time. The strengths - better hardware and better features, are not ones that Microsoft or Nintendo can beat until they come out with a new console.

The PS3 is selling extremely well considering the cost in this economy. Even outside of that context, while 131,000 units is behind the Wii and $#hitbox, it's still a substantial amount that keeps the console relevant. When their costs come down and they can lower prices, and the economy recovers, it should really take off.

I'm reading now that Blu-ray will be costing roughly $50 to make very soon, and if that's the case, considering other component costs, it won't be too long until Sony can chop the price down, on their terms, instead of on the terms of people who know nothing about their business model, and probably too much about killing the evil Zargons.

I think everyone's comments are on track, but, there is a GLARING fact missing from all this. Sony's biggest mistake on the PS3 for not selling more. And IMHO the main reason that is hurting sales... the removal of backward compatability with the PS2. All the owners of PS2's don't feel or see the need to buy a PS3 when 90% of games released are also on the PS2. Probably why many are still buying the PS2.
And for reference to another poster who led his remark by saying that Bluray was the victor because Sony was coming out with the PS3, ummm, The PS3 was out way before Blu-ray won. And that was only when HP announced that it would not fund further into HD-DVD. Also, many people did buy the PS3 for the Blu ray feature when it first came out. When compared to then prices, $499 and up for standalone 1st gen blu ray players opposed to $399 for the PS3, it was a no brainer. In essence, getting a free console video game player built into a blu ray player. Now, of course, not so true...prices on standalones are lower now; and much better.

The PS3 has a non customized generic Nvidia 7800GTX for its GPU. So no. Even if the Cell CPU is as uber as they claim their GPU is subpar. This is shown in their sub 30 fps in many recent games.