Activision Could Pull PlayStation 3 Support
Obviously, we aren't the only ones wondering why a PS3 price drop wasn't announced recently at E3, with major game developer Activision even wondering if it will continue to support the console in the near future. Specifically, Activision Blizzard Chief Executive Bobby Kotick stated that it may end up dropping support for Sony's console due to high development costs and lackluster sales. To quote: "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."
He even pointed out that in 2010 or 2011, his company "might want to consider if we support the console -- and the PSP too." For those thinking this is just a bunch of nothing, let us remind you that Activision is indeed the largest US game publisher, and should it actually drop support, we'd say a serious price drop from Sony would follow suit. In all honesty, though, we'd wager that a drop would come before such a drastic move, but at any rate, we're thrilled someone with some amount of pull is making the issue clear to Sony.
|
Via: Reuters | News Archive
| Tags:
Sony,
Gaming,
PlayStation 3,
PS3,
Market,
Activision,
Price Drop
|
Comments
|
I think this is pretty insane, however it's about time Sony gets their act together. I remember playing the ps3 at a friends house and it was nowhere up to par with the 360, despite the blu-ray support. |
|
I'm not sure where the $299 Wii price in the article comes from. It's always been $249.99, right? And the price quoted for the Xbox is the crippled one without a hard drive, right? Neither of those (without paying again for storage add-ons) will be much competition for the PS3 in the coming year, when even more sales will be via digital downloads. Full disclosure: I own them all. Each is best in one regard or the another. The PS3 is obviously the most powerful, the 360 has the more polished on-line interface (but lacks a web browser, whice even the Wii has), and the Wii has the most 'fun' factor out of the box. |
|
I don't have any of them. I have thought about getting a Wii because the only time I really play my PS2 or Xbox is when I have friends over. Which is were the Wii excels. Anyway I think Activisions coomplains are because of the high development costs for the PS3. Were both the Xbox and Wii are basicly low end PCs the PS3s CPUs are very hard to code for. Something many other companies have complained about. |
|
It's kind of weird to see Sony in this position, because the complaints the developers have against the PS3 ring similar to what they were saying about the Sega Saturn when the original PlayStation trounced it. The Saturn was released first and had more raw computational power. But according to every developer the multi-processor system was a @#^#$ to program. It's very much like the problems that crippled Atari Jaguar development too - You'd see crappy games because the developers would write their main loop to run on the familiar 68000 that was actually meant to be used as a sound co-processor. Sega eventually alleviated the problem by releasing some more friendly APIs that made it easier to use the system to a higher potential (just look at VF2 and later games). Alas, it was too late - PlayStation had already solidified its lead and become the developer favorite. If Sony's smart, they'll work on their SDK pronto. P.S.: The Wii's a good choice if you want a system for "group games". The 360 does have a couple of really fun ones (Alien Hominid HD and Castle Crashers come to mind), but not as many as the Wii. On the PS3, "Buzz!" is the only group game I own. Buzz is fun right up until the final round, where basically any random button-masher can win the game - despite the fact that you're ahead by a trillion points at the start of the round. Auuurrrrghhh! :) |
Post a Comment
