Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #execcatfight more → 
BioWare: Activision's PS3 Comment Is "Silly"
Denver, 11:03 AM
Tue Nov 10
60 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
| posts about #execcatfight more → |
BioWare: Activision's PS3 Comment Is "Silly" |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
The logic is, they are developing Dragon Age for the PS3 and are 'pumped' to be doing so, with much developing success.
http://www.videogamer.com/news/bioware_really_pumped_to_work_on_ps3.html
07/14/09
It seems that most multiconsole owners are sticking with the 360 version of multiplatform games, and that many people are owning multiple consoles.
Kotick was mention 2011/2012 as being the sort of time they would make a decision, and if by that point the trend pointed out by the recent news continues, it makes little sense to spend a lot of money making games multiplatform.
Kotick's comments are silly when you consider that it's highly likely that Sony WILL reduce the price of the PS3. Asking them to do something that is a given...really doesn't make any sense.
07/14/09
that's over 200 dollars. wth?
07/14/09
07/14/09
Can you really say though that Sony Will announce a price drop on their systems when they are releasing a new console later this year?
Personally I see Sony using the Slim PS3 as a reason to keep prices high, because it will spark a new interest in the console and increase peoples desire to get the console once again.
I also don't understand why they dont do a price cut. When they first launched the PS3, it WAS losing them money, it cost more to make it than to sell it, but the hardware has gone down in price, but they have not lowered it. In the previous generation, the Xbox and PS2 were both selling at a loss, and the 360 and PS3 this generation both started that way.
The concept is, sell it for a loss and have the software sales make up for it later.
I think Sony needs to work a little bit more on the competitive side. Im already disapointed that there is little support for the PSP, and I am even more disapointed that on the US and EUR market the PS3 is getting shafted. On the JP side the PS3 is doing better. At least, on the PSN side and the PS Store.
Then again the way Sony talks I thinked they stoped caring about the western market a while ago when they claimed that the western market is too cheap for a PS3, even though the 360 elite is just as much in price and has lesser hardware =/ (except the HDD that is)
07/14/09
07/14/09
I could go into technical details, but instead of that suffice it to say that it's *quite* difficult and Zeschuk's comment is likely posturing with regards to BioWare's pending support of the PS3 as a platform. You must remember that BioWare's been primarily a PC developer up until Mass Effect, really, and coding for the PC translates a hojillion times better to the xbox than the ps3. That's right, a jillion ho's.
Why are you even pissed, anyway? Zeschuk's comment was favorable towards the PS3 as a whole, and one would think someone in support of the console would be happy that another developer has thrown their hat in with it...
07/14/09
yeah, that's solid business right there. dont get me wrong, fanboy piece or not, i appreciated them saying sony's PR has done a ton of damage to the brand, but that was an inane example to harp on, i think.
07/14/09
Then they pull out the E3 06...
Giant enemy crabs. Ok, I'm gonna tell you a game with a historical setting: Metal Gear Freaking Solid 3. A historical setting doesn't mean 100% (or even 50%) realism... It means a historical setting. There was no nuclear attack on Russia, no Female super soldier that invented the special forces, no electrified Soviet faction leader... It's still a historical setting.
Having completely unrealistic things with monsters and such doesn't change the historical setting that Genji had... The fact the game was mediocre and immediately overshadowed by the much better Ninja Gaiden Sigma doesn't matter... The fact is the mockery was kind of not merited for THAT issue specifically.
Next is "Riiiiidge racer." That comment was about the PSP's ability to play PS1 games... WHich is pretty fsking cool I hear it all the time "I'm playing FF7 on my PSP!" PS1 games on PSP was HUGE, and the ability to play them on both PSP and PS3 at the same time was huge, and when they FINALLY unified the save files, being able to go back and forth between them is also HUGE... Anyone who denies that is kidding themselves
599 US dollars... yeah, I got nothing. It's either the second or third most expensive console launch in the US, but only IF YOU DON'T ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION so it was a huge deal, and a big negative, but I think it's earned its place now... That's only my opinion, of course, so I'll leave that as a valid point for the E306 mess. 2/3 of those memes weren't legit.
07/14/09
Say what you will, friend, but those memes have done far more good than bad, IMO.
07/14/09
07/14/09
Everyone knows the price is getting cut, and there's a damn good chance it's either this year or with the Slim. I just hope we don't throw this guy up as some kind of prophet or king maker.
07/14/09
After all, name one product that is a failure that has pushed over 20 million units.
07/14/09
You can say it's doing better than the GC, but with today's high cost of HD game development, it's going to have to be MUCH better than the GC to sustain development.
I'd argue that both the 360 and PS3 aren't at the levels they should be in terms of userbase.
07/14/09
07/14/09
FPS games on console... pffft.
07/14/09
First off, I know PS3 owners with and without PC's, just like I know 360 owners with or without PC's, and (gasp!) people that own all three. You know what's worse than fanboys? People calling out "fanboy" like a fucking five year old every time they disagree with a comment.
As far as your second comment, while I won't even get started on the arguement of whether or not PC's are even valid as a gaming system anymore, I will point out that some people have more fun on a 360 or a PS3. While you certainly have more control with a keyboard and mouse, that doesn't necessarily make it more fun. Some people enjoy playing a game with the controls that are the most comfortable to them.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Granted, I'm sure that the viewpoint is different from a developer and a publisher (the developer cares more about the hardware itself, the publisher cares more about the profitability)... but it's not like BioWare as done much with PS3, whereas Activision has published nearly all of its big titles on PS3.
07/14/09
07/14/09
Zeschuk's just speaking business sense from outside the purview of either Microsoft or Sony.
07/14/09
It's about expierence of working with the platform. While Kotick's comment was beyond idiotic (especially for a CEO of a major, multiplatform third-party publisher), he does come from working with the system (on a business standpoint) since it came out.
07/14/09
Perhaps I inferred too much, but it seemed like the end of your first statement was dismissing BioWare too quickly. I just wanted to point out that they hadn't had a chance yet to publish on the PS3. They certainly have experience in the benefits of multiple platforms, even if the PC and XBox are relatively similar to program for.
If anyone pays any attention to the industry at all, though, it's readily apparent that blockbuster sized titles have to go multiplatform to compensate for the escalating production costs. That bit of knowledge in itself is enough to expose the silliness of Kotick's comment, and that seemed to be all Zeschuk was remarking on.
07/14/09
You aren't far off. While I agree with what Zaschuk said, it's easy to comment on something when you have little-to-no experience in being involved.
07/14/09
07/14/09
I have no doubt in the development talent of BioWare. That isn't even part of the situation. But every console has its own set of tricks and traps to work with.
07/14/09
07/14/09
That said, Sony should price cut some time soon. I've heard that Microsoft is prepping for counter maneuvering to a perceived price drop at the end of summer, but who the hell knows if that's even going to happen.
07/14/09
Another six months maybe - but I'd certainly be surprised if the price came down to $299.
07/14/09
Given this economy, and the fact that people are still on the tail end of being pissed about being on their 4th XBox, a cut at the beginning of September could really work in their favor for the holiday rush.
07/14/09
Activision really would not lose as much as expected if anything at all if they cut support for the PS3. Thats why they are talking about it. Attach rates are down, and people forget about royalties that publishers pay. $500 million in royalties a year is a hefty bunch. Factor in saving in dev costs (which are also higher then people realize) and you come to realize that ceasing support of the ps3 isnt merely a whim.
So how much money are they actually making (if anything at all) from supporting the ps3? Obviously it has to be some number small enough that they would entertain the thought. So the real question is, "is it monitarily efficient to use these dev teams to build a ps3 game?" Because even if they are making a whole buttload of money on the ps3, if they could make more by doing something else with the teams....as a buisness shouldnt they?
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09