Rock Band 2 sold significantly less then Rock Band on every system.
Activision CEO: “We Might Have To Stop Supporting Sony”
- Thread starter TEXAN*
- Start date
Rock Band 2 sold significantly less then Rock Band on every system.
deathindustrial
Regular
Marvel Ultimate Alliance was also released very early in the PS3 lifecycle (November 7, 2006) and considering how difficult a time I had finding it early this year, may not have had many copies printed initially. It certainly disappeared from the channel long ago. So I do not think that this game can be used to represent much about system sell ratios.
I do not know much about Kung-Fu Panda but I can at least say that the movie blu-ray to system ratio is hugely in favour of the PS3 over the Xbox360.
=)
Cheers
Hmmmm indeed. Wait, what? Do you know what this means in the context of this thread? Because I'm not sure. Smash Hits is out for PS3.
No, I'm not sure, either 
It's an extra bit of marketing push for the game. Very tiny, if it's for one day only - they might release the PS3 bundle a bit later.
The most interesting, console-war-drama, conspiracy theory would be that it was timed to coincide with Bobby Kotick's remark. Just a tiny twitch of a muscle, not even a flex.
It's an extra bit of marketing push for the game. Very tiny, if it's for one day only - they might release the PS3 bundle a bit later.
The most interesting, console-war-drama, conspiracy theory would be that it was timed to coincide with Bobby Kotick's remark. Just a tiny twitch of a muscle, not even a flex.
Mintmaster
Veteran
COD pretty much was new IP for a console. There's also Gears, Assassin's Creed, L4D, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Saint's Row, Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Crackdown, Army of Two, sequels of several of these, many are well over 2M in sales instead of near 1M, and devs get more money per disc.
In total, there's probably 4x the revenue in third party new IP on 360 vs. the Wii. I think that's pretty significant. It's also easier to figure out what HD owners want than stabbing in the dark with Wii titles (classic IP cash cows excluded).
I really don't think I'm out of line with my claims.
This statement has to be a misquote or he has to mean it in a very long term perspective, or something..
Doesn't make sense financially not to support the PS3 and make multiplat titles, atleast not for their big sellers. CoD4 & 5 (4+ mill and 3+ mill) have both sold very well on the PS3.
Perhaps a lot of the smaller titles doesn't sell alot, i havent checked.
This seems more likely, as porting their big sellers gives superb return on equity.
Maybe he just wants to try to signal to sony that they should lower the price, so that Activisions potential custumers increases in size.
I'm 100% postive that the RoE on the PS3 is much higher than for the X360
You already created all the assets and code for the X360 game anyway, all you got to do is make it run feasable on the PS3. Porting a X360 title to PS3, is peanuts in costs. Correct me if im wrong, but most PS3 porting teams are small in size, 6-10 coders.
10 coders, even if you give them $ 100k a year, which i guess is a good salary for that field, thats only 1 million dollars per year. Compare this to the budget for making the X360 title (which Activision would have to spend anyway, regardless of porting or not) , can be anywhere from 10-40 mill USD (depending on marketing budgets).
As long as Activision has a rational business model that maximizes return, the only reason not to port a title, is if there is another investment avaliable that yields a higher return after discounting for risk.
I think we can all agree that its extremely unlikely that investing the 1-2 million for porting a title, into the lead platform instead of porting the game would result in the same increase in profits. After all, they would roughly have to increase the sales by 50% on a single platform, which doesn't magically happend if you throw another couple million on an already probably very well financed dev budget (if we talk about infinity ward cod games).
I cannot imagine other investment projects avaliable to activision that yields higher risk adjusted return, not for CoD series etc.
Smaller ip's perhaps dont sell at all on the Ps3?
Either way, im sure this is more of trying to signal sony to drop ps3 price, than anything else.
(Sorry if im stating the obvious, i havent read the thread at all)
Doesn't make sense financially not to support the PS3 and make multiplat titles, atleast not for their big sellers. CoD4 & 5 (4+ mill and 3+ mill) have both sold very well on the PS3.
Perhaps a lot of the smaller titles doesn't sell alot, i havent checked.
This seems more likely, as porting their big sellers gives superb return on equity.
Maybe he just wants to try to signal to sony that they should lower the price, so that Activisions potential custumers increases in size.
I'm 100% postive that the RoE on the PS3 is much higher than for the X360
(obviously, since it the lead platform, thus most of the work is done on this console. Smaller budget for the PS3 team, while good sales (doesn't really have to be all that high, they seem to sell about 50% less on the PS3, but the different in budgets are more than tenfold!) equals higher return on equity.
You already created all the assets and code for the X360 game anyway, all you got to do is make it run feasable on the PS3. Porting a X360 title to PS3, is peanuts in costs. Correct me if im wrong, but most PS3 porting teams are small in size, 6-10 coders.
10 coders, even if you give them $ 100k a year, which i guess is a good salary for that field, thats only 1 million dollars per year. Compare this to the budget for making the X360 title (which Activision would have to spend anyway, regardless of porting or not) , can be anywhere from 10-40 mill USD (depending on marketing budgets).
As long as Activision has a rational business model that maximizes return, the only reason not to port a title, is if there is another investment avaliable that yields a higher return after discounting for risk.
I think we can all agree that its extremely unlikely that investing the 1-2 million for porting a title, into the lead platform instead of porting the game would result in the same increase in profits. After all, they would roughly have to increase the sales by 50% on a single platform, which doesn't magically happend if you throw another couple million on an already probably very well financed dev budget (if we talk about infinity ward cod games).
I cannot imagine other investment projects avaliable to activision that yields higher risk adjusted return, not for CoD series etc.
Smaller ip's perhaps dont sell at all on the Ps3?
Either way, im sure this is more of trying to signal sony to drop ps3 price, than anything else.
(Sorry if im stating the obvious, i havent read the thread at all)
I think it may confirm what I was suggesting, that Activision is pressuring Sony to have their games packed in PS3 bundles.
WWII is not a new IP. And there were two COD games on consoles last gen. "Pretty much new IP for a console" means "not new IP." Further, the plural of "anecdote" is not "statistic." Gears of War was published and promoted by Microsoft and is in no way, shape, or form a 3rd party game.
Go look at the lists on Wikipedia. There are 36 360 games listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Xbox_360_video_games
Of those, a grand total of eight were new third-party IP. A full twenty-six (1st and 3rd party included) were based on existing IP.
There are 33 Wii games listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games
Of those, a grand total of nine were new third-party IP.
I don't see any data suggesting it's easier for a 3rd party to have a hit with new IP on the 360. You'll need to come up with something better than a list of four or five games.
Mintmaster
Veteran
I didn't know that about COD, as I just went by by what Wikipedia said (did those sell well?). As for not being new on a console, well, most PC games don't do very well when bringing the franchise to consoles. They generally have to be drastically improved and retooled to do so, so IMO it's just like new IP, especially from the POV of the target audience. Every gamer has heard of Sonic, Resident Evil, Guitar Hero, etc. Not so much with COD. It became a power franchise on 360/PS3.
As for Gears, this whole discussion with joker454 is from the dev studio's POV, so it remains valid, IMO. I'm sure Microsoft had to pay Epic a handsome sum to keep the franchise 360/PC exclusive or buy the IP, and it could happen again. A third party could get the same treatment from Nintendo if it could come up with fantastic new IP, but it hasn't happened yet.
But if you insist on ignoring all COD and Gears games, then I guess my revenue argument is less potent.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
I have a PS3 and I love it but the situation for Sony is not very good. this is a post i just wrote in the technology forum that could be more suitable here:
I think if this thing about x-egine is something about it is about a new xbox coming next year with Natal. the 1 gb rumour match the new xbox upgrade to 1gb rumour. In this situation from a market point of view it would be a winner point for Microsoft taking into account that the new system would be "upward" compatible with the Xbox 360 games, increasing AA, and filters. Natal will need processing power and memory and this gets on also with the rumours hinting the cpu would pass from 3 to 6 cores.
This is a win win situation for Microsoft. Nintendo will have to launch its Wii HD in 2010 or 2011 as the DVB television signal will be mandatory in many european countries for 2010 -no more analogic signals-. Here for example shops and local governments are giving discounts for your old SD tv machines. People will start looking at HD sources more than now ( i supposse this christmas will be a good time for blu ray sales ) and Nintendo must be there, more now that has lost its "momentun" with the "waggle" wars. And in this situation Microsoft can kill three birds from a shot:
- Sink Sony more as Sony is the only one of the three that i can´t see launching a new system until at least 2012. People with a PS3 that is a graphics whore will jump to MS.
- Bring some "waggle" casual market from Nintendo to Natal.
- Bring again many hardcore graphics whores from the PC space as the new system would allow to cope with Arma 2 or Crysis PC counterpart level of graphics.
I think its estrategy would be to make games with two level of graphics details: one for 360 and one for Natal. Everybody would be happy.
There have been many hints about this lately: Ballmer´s messing it up in his speech, ATI saying "wait to see next console graphics"', next ATI RV840 chip being very little and suitable for consoles, this news about X-engine, and so on. But above all i think Microsoft now believes in itself and his "momentun". They will go for their plan, the one they have since the first Xbox: dominate our living rooms.
Think about one thing for a moment: wouldn´t it be ironic that in this supposse 10 years cycle in which 360 and PS3 should last until 2015 a Wii HD launched in 2011 would be the graphics king for 4 years ?.
I think Microsoft won´t let it be nor graphically better nor "waggle"-ly better one month!!.
Or i could be completely wrong!!.
I think if this thing about x-egine is something about it is about a new xbox coming next year with Natal. the 1 gb rumour match the new xbox upgrade to 1gb rumour. In this situation from a market point of view it would be a winner point for Microsoft taking into account that the new system would be "upward" compatible with the Xbox 360 games, increasing AA, and filters. Natal will need processing power and memory and this gets on also with the rumours hinting the cpu would pass from 3 to 6 cores.
This is a win win situation for Microsoft. Nintendo will have to launch its Wii HD in 2010 or 2011 as the DVB television signal will be mandatory in many european countries for 2010 -no more analogic signals-. Here for example shops and local governments are giving discounts for your old SD tv machines. People will start looking at HD sources more than now ( i supposse this christmas will be a good time for blu ray sales ) and Nintendo must be there, more now that has lost its "momentun" with the "waggle" wars. And in this situation Microsoft can kill three birds from a shot:
- Sink Sony more as Sony is the only one of the three that i can´t see launching a new system until at least 2012. People with a PS3 that is a graphics whore will jump to MS.
- Bring some "waggle" casual market from Nintendo to Natal.
- Bring again many hardcore graphics whores from the PC space as the new system would allow to cope with Arma 2 or Crysis PC counterpart level of graphics.
I think its estrategy would be to make games with two level of graphics details: one for 360 and one for Natal. Everybody would be happy.
There have been many hints about this lately: Ballmer´s messing it up in his speech, ATI saying "wait to see next console graphics"', next ATI RV840 chip being very little and suitable for consoles, this news about X-engine, and so on. But above all i think Microsoft now believes in itself and his "momentun". They will go for their plan, the one they have since the first Xbox: dominate our living rooms.
Think about one thing for a moment: wouldn´t it be ironic that in this supposse 10 years cycle in which 360 and PS3 should last until 2015 a Wii HD launched in 2011 would be the graphics king for 4 years ?.
I think Microsoft won´t let it be nor graphically better nor "waggle"-ly better one month!!.
Or i could be completely wrong!!.
To the idea of a new 360, I would say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8K87H3T1UU
Launching a new 360 next year (as in an upgraded performance model) would be roughly as boneheaded as launching a console at $599. I'd be utterly shocked if they did, but then again the weather in Seattle is so gloomy, maybe it makes people do crazy things.
I really doubt the WiiHD would pass 360/PS3 in graphical prowess. The regular Wii doesn't even match the old Xbox! WiiHD will be whatever upgrade lets Nintendo maintain their Apple-esque profit margins.
There were two COD games on last-gen consoles. If you played any first person shooters at all, you knew about them. I don't see where you're getting that it's "new."
From the dev's point of view, MS bought the IP, paid them to develop it, and oversaw its PR campaign. From their point of view, it's quite different from going it alone.
If you insist on basing your argument on (a) an IP that isn't new and (b) an IP that isn't third-party, then I have to say you don't have a valid argument.
Further, your initial claim was not that Epic made a lot of money, or that it is easier for Activision to get rich by making 360 games. You claimed that it is easier, in general, for third parties to introduce hit new IP on the 360. In essence, you claimed a 3rd party IP is more likely to be a hit on 360. This means that a larger fraction of successful 360 games should be new 3rd party IP as compared to Wii. But it isn't. How much money Epic made by making a 2nd-party game for MS has zero bearing on the probability that a new 3rd party IP will be successful. Epic could make a trillion dollars, and it still doesn't mean that a 3rd party has a higher probability of success.
You have a point, here, but Call of Duty wasn't what it is until 4. It's not quite new IP, but it's not like Madden, a massively successful franchise that moved onto HD and continued successful. It's a franchise that became a juggernaut on HD, on a game that was a radical departure from the previous games in the franchise.
Also, going a little back, and mostly a nitpick, 'Tom Clancy' isn't really a franchise, more a brand. GRAW isn't R6 isn't SC isn't HAWX isn't End War. They're different games with different game-styles with different sales. Are we considering Rabbids to be a Rayman game? I wouldn't.
Do you know the bolded for a fact? Because MS doesn't own Gears of War. It's Epic's IP and MS had, last I heard, a 2-game contract (which will almost certainly be 3-game).
But not all the IP is old. L4D is new. AC is new. Mass Effect is new. Gears is new. Dead Rising is new. Lost Planet is new. We're not really at the top-selling list, but we're at the million-sellers. I'm not sure Mintmaster is right but his facts aren't entirely wrong. And Gears is a MS-published game, but again, it's not a MS IP. I'd still consider it 1st party, though.
Mintmaster
Veteran
The distinction is still there. No mildly successful GC/PS2 game was able to become huge on the Wii.
The PS3/360 CoD games didn't benefit too much from loyal fans. It became a big franchise on the HD consoles.
I don't believe you're right, at least not in that order. In any case, my point is the same. A third party studio created new IP for the 360, developed it, and got gobs of revenue for their efforts, just like any other third party game. If it was a PS3/360 title, it probably would have brought in almost as much revenue anyway.
If something of this nature happened on the Wii in any game I excluded, please point it out to me.
I'm sorry you read it that way, but my claim has always been risk/reward related. It absolutely makes a big difference whether something is a small hit or a big hit, because unless a studio is in danger of bankruptcy, it will make decisions based on expected value.
CoD 1 was massively sucessful on the PC, and there where two (i think) CoD derivatives that where total junk made by trenchyard but still sold over a mill each.
With CoD2 on the X360, console gamers did get introduced to the real CoD, not the crap that trenchyard was making.
I agree thought, that CoD really made its name this time around, but calling it a new ip is strentching things a bit to much. Its a tested an proven formula, refined over half a decade.
Call of Duty blew up with game number 4 It's not as if the first 3 games didn't exist. It's not a new IP by any stretch.
Speaking of IP's and such, here's a related article with some sales figure ranges:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24199
Speaking of IP's and such, here's a related article with some sales figure ranges:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24199
You said it yourself: Not a new IP. The fact that Mintmaster is still trying to argue that it was a "new" IP after a big hit on the PC plus two hits on last-gen consoles is ridiculous. "New IP" means exactly that: new. Not "old IP with a facelift." Not "old IP on a different system." Not "old IP made by some different guys." Not "old IP in a different setting." Actual new IP. Also, the definition of "IP" includes brands. Tom Clancy's name and the little logo are IP.
My mistake...I had read that somewhere, I think here, actually, but further research shows I was wrong. However, it simply is not a third-party game. It's "second party." No matter how much anyone tries to spin it, Gears of War got special treatment from Microsoft that no third-party game gets, and that contributed to its sales.
I never said it was "all" old. I said most of it is old. And it's true, most of the big moneymakers on the system are old IP.
Don't assume that if a game developer is doing something that it must be rational and draw conclusions about expected value.Mintmaster said:
