Activision CEO calls for PS3 price cut

(Credit: Sony)

Apparently, it's not just CNET readers but game developers who are among those demanding Sony cut the price of the $400 PS3. In an interview with the London Times, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has some strong advice for Sony and threatened to pull its support for the console.

"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates (the number of games each console owner buys) are likely to slow," Kotick said. "If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony." As for the timing on that, he adds: "When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console--and the PSP (portable) too."

For its part, Sony, which is mired in third place behind Nintendo and Microsoft in the next-gen game-console wars, keeps saying it won't be pressured into trimming the price of the PS3. But with industry heavyweights like Activision making these types of remarks, it's becoming more and more clear that the pressure is indeed on.

Should Sony hurry up and wilt under the heat? Or should it stick to its game plan, whatever it is?

(Source: Times Online via TG Daily)

[cgharlow]

Activision may have the right idea, but it needs to look at the prices of the games to be holistic about the gaming industry. Reducing PS3 prices is a short term (and dubious) fix at best.

[hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm]

What do you mean? Every game for ps3 is alot more expensive then any other platform. Most of the time 10 -30 bucks more.

Are you saying that they need to reduce the price of their games? Maybe you do not understand how profit works.

If it cost you, per game, 59 bucks to produce a game. And you sale that game 59.95. You have made a profit 95 cents per game. Are you saying that they should sale the game for 39 bucks, losing 20 bucks?

Or maybe you do not understand how the system works.

Between the special encoding for that cell processor, the licensing fees, and testing and production, the cost for ps3 is always going to be double digits percentage highers.

If it cost, per game, 30 bucks to produce for pc. It will cost 10 bucks more for ps3. You can not expect anyone to lose money.

PS3 choose to install a cell processor. This did not really improve graphics or gameplay, but increases the cost for programing.

Sony shot themselves in the foot. Now they have to live with their failure.

[Jawknee1]

hhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

what are you talk about? just about every new game on the Xbox is 60 bucks too. Nintendo is the only one that sells new games for $50. if anything MS should be cutting the price of their games. Theyre still printed on DVDs. The problem i have with Activision making these statements is because they are saying the PS3 over priced? What about Guitar Heros price? $200 bucks for that crap? please.....

[revxx14]

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm, companies don't charge an extra 95 cents when they produce a game. To make a copy of the game costs more like 5 cents. they rack up the price so much, partially, to pay the people who developed the game, and also to make a lot more money off of it. Trust me, gaming companies make much, much more than 95 cents per copy.

[hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm]

@ Jawknee1

Scroll down. I was talking about newer games, not new games. GTA IV is like 30 bucks cheaper with xbox and 40 bucks cheaper with pc, then ps3 only 6 months after it release.

@revxx14

I do not know where to start. You have left me speech less. Let me try this. It cost somewhere around 20,000,000 dollars to produce something like fallout 3. Not including advertising, shipping, porting it out to ps3, and support. The producer can sum that up in cost per unit. For fall out 3 it is really cheap, cost per unit, probably around 20 or 30 dollars per unit cost. But if you sale less, the cost per unit goes up. If you can not sale enough units to surpass the cost to produce, then it is not worth producing. For example, it cost 50 dollars to produce, and you can sale it for 49.99. See the problem. If it cost 20,000,000 dollars to make and you sale each copy for 30 bucks. You need to sale you 600,000 copies before you turn profit. Price per unit.

[SteveW928]

@ hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm -

Maybe you're not getting something.... there are over 22M PS3 units out there. If you can't create a title that sells more than 600k copies(if you really spend $20M on development), maybe you shouldn't be in game development. The truth is many of these developers don't spend nearly that much, and are just hoping to do a quick port for each console. If they do that and spend $20M, they need to have their heads checked. For example, Killzone 2 has sold well over 1M units already and actually did cost $20M to produce (and is one of the most advanced games around for it).

I get sick of hearing these big developers whine when the small studios kick their butts on turning out awesome stuff. Maybe Activision's problem is the need for some good titles. The only worthwhile game they really have IMO is Guitar Hero (some might argue CoD... but when I look at stuff like KZ2... enough said).

There are PLENTY of PS3 units around for them to make money on it if they produce good titles. I hope Sony drops the price too... heck, I wish they give them away for free... but the pricing of the console isn't Activision's problem if they aren't selling enough on the platform.

[wimpytx93]

@hhhmmmmmmmmmmm
are frekin nuts? do u seriously think it cost them 59 dollars to produce a game? try $3

[Jefferson101]

hhhhhmmm you idiot. They are right. It costs on average 3-4 dollars to produce a game. Slightly more (a few bucks) to produce a Blu-Ray game. The development is factored into that. I see that you have no formal business training nor do you understand industry. People don't make money off of the console. They lose money. Sony and everyone else makes money off of the software. So making 95 cents a copy is unrealistic.

Your wrong, stop arguing with everyone dip $h!T

[ccmike72]

First of all for the love of god YOU CAN NOT SALE ANYTHING. IT'S SELL THE VERB IS SELL. How hard is that?

Now now onto the issue. You don't spend 20mil just to develop for the ps3 maybe you pay 20 million total to develop the game and an extra 1 million (these numbers are just for example not a real estimate) to port it to the PS3. Its not you sell 500k copies at $2 more to make up the difference. Its not companies are paying 50, 80, 90% more to produce titles for the PS3. A small price increase should be able to recover the extra cost when you sell your game to a 20 million + market of PS3 owners.

[SteveW928]

Folks... hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm is actually fairly accurate on the development costs and what games can sell for... just really uninformed on PS3 issues and what the developers are complaining about (and why).

Simple math here... typical titles on the current generation of game consoles cost between 10M and 15M to produce (some upwards of 20M). If you sell 500k copies (fairly typical from what I've seen)... not even counting the cost of the discs, distribution , etc.... you'd need to get $20 - $30 per disc to come out... and remember, distribution costs money... your local Best Buy or EB Games store doesn't put them on the shelves for free.

Now.... if you write a hit game... it typically sells 1M to 3M + copies. Then, even if you spend $20M, now you're down in the $6-$20 range to recoup your costs. They certainly couldn't sell games for $3... and now that couldn't possibly include the development costs... maybe the production costs (stamping discs, artwork, packaging...).

The reason so many of these developers are upset at Sony is that it isn't as easy to port to the PS3. So, they write on the PC and hope to sell 500k+ copies there... then maybe 300k on Xbox and 200-300k on PS3, etc. If they feel it is too hard to port to PS3, then they might have to decide if they selling that extra 200-300k copies is really worth the trouble. Or, they do really poor ports, and end up selling less copies as the PS3 people say the game is junk.

Notice that the studios who write good creative titles for the PS3 that take advantage of the system sell lots of copies and seem to have no troubles developing for the "hard to develop for PS3". The reason these folks are whining, if that they just want to do that quick port. The Xbox is basically a computer (much like an older IBM/Motorola Mac in hardware)... so porting to it from the PC version isn't all that hard. M$ has dev tools that help in this process. But, it isn't like PS3 is non-standard stuff... it uses OpenGL (a simplified subset) and a version of C (called Cg) which is a simplified C for gaming graphics. They just want it to be M$ based... that is why all the whining is going on.

[DMAN3k]

What Sony needs to do is reduce the cost of blu-ray movies and the cost of PS3 game by $10.

[bobmarleypeople]

As I've said before, I was told that Sony lose money on every PS3 sold, thus the lack of price cuts. Therefore, I hope they figure out some sort of hardware changes to save money and pass the saving onto us.

[jwilson61904]

Why does everybody continue to say that the PS3 is overpriced? Let?s compare it to the Xbox 360 (apples to apples)

PS3
Base Unit (80gb) - $399
Wireless Network ? included
Rechargeable Controller ? included
Total: $399

Xbox 360
Base Unit (60gb) - $299
Wireless Network - $76.99
Rechargeable Controler - $19.99
Total: $395.98

In an effort to be fair:
1. All prices were taken from amazon.com (not picking and choosing the best deals throughout the web)
2. I did not include the cost of an Xbox Live subscription because it may cost more over the course of a year, but given the amount of DLC there is benefit to having it. Since we are just considering pure cost and the PS3 does not have a comparable version, I chose to leave it off.
3. I also chose to leave the cost of a Bluray player off the cost of the Xbox 360 (see item 2)

As you can see, the PS3 price is similar to the Xbox 360 if you give the systems a fair comparison. Sony?s real problem is that they don?t have a less expensive stripped down model. With the Xbox 360, you can by the arcade model for a couple hundred dollars and add the peripherals as needed giving it the illusion of a less expensive system. Sony did not design the PS3 to have this option and given where the economy is, that?s a big problem.

[Don Key]

@ jwilson61904 and if I don't want any of that stuff? Remember, MS is giving consumers the *choice* to pick and choose what they need to suit their needs. Sony is forcing it on the user. Let's just say little Johnny Consumer only wants to play the new Ghostbusters game and doesn't care if he's online. How much does it cost to play Ghostbusters on the 360?

$199 for the system, $60 for the game... $260

How much does it cost for the PS3?

$399 for the system, $60 for the game... $460

We are talking entry price. What does it cost to get it in my house and just see the Press Start screen on my TV? I can add the other stuff later *if* I want to. People will see value in everything. I see the value in a sweet BMW but my Honda still gets me back and forth to work.

[jwilson61904]

@ Don Key

This is exactly my point. It's not that Sony's hardware is too expensive. It's that they don't offer a low cost entry model that someone can build as they see fit. They designed the PS3 as an "all inclusive" device and as a result are in a more difficult position than just having overpriced hardware. My guess is that they can't drop the price of the PS3 anymore because they are already competitive in terms of hardware prices just not in system design, and that's a big problem that can't be fixed by as people continue to cry "Just drop the price!"

[tcr071]

These are things that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT when it comes to a gaming console.

1. Being able to watch hi-def movies.
2. Being able to plug my SD card into my console.
3. Bluetooth controllers.
4. Wireless networking.
5. Humongous hard drives
6. Rechargeable controllers

I bought a console so that I can play video games. I don't care for or want to pay for any of the crap that Sony thinks I need to play a video game. If Microsoft can get more quality games developed for the Xbox 360 on DVD9 then the DVD9 format is clearly "enough" for this generation. I can go buy Gears of War 2, an Xbox 360 Arcade Edition, and come home having spent only $260. If I want to go buy Fallout 3 and a Playstation 3 I will have spent $200 more than that.

I really don't care, not at all, that I get more value from my money when I buy a PS3 and the consumers have overwhelmingly voted in the same fashion. I'm sure I get more value buying eggs bulk from Costco but if I need four eggs for a meal I'm preparing I don't need to buy 4 dozen. Sony still hasn't realized this and they won't realize this. With their current offering at their current pricing scheme they will remain in third place and the gap will increase.

[irueludruel]

XBox 360 fools parents with their entry pricing. Very few people use their 360 without a hard drive, router and yearly live subscription. Sony is by far the better value. If you do not want a hardcore gaming experience the Wii is the way to go.

[Jefferson101]

Trc07

Why wouldn't you want a wireless controller that can be rechargeable. That option is by far the greatest thing about playing. No cords. Having a Blu-Ray player to watch hi def movies on is pretty nice. Watching them on my 50 inch plasma is even better. The fact that I can get that in an all in one console is great. The large hard drives are nice to download games (which will be the future) so having them is nice.

People are being way to cheap. If you can't afford the tech, don't complain. If you want something state of the art, then you will have to pay for it.

[kalel33]

I can afford state of the art, it's why I have a gaming computer too that puts the PS3 to shame. If you cannot afford state of the art technology then go ahead and buy a PS3, but don't say it's state of the art when PC is well past the limits of a PS3.

[Jefferson101]

The Ps3 is state of the art for a gaming system. A computer can use state of the art hardware as well. You can do much more with a computer then you can a ps3. Price has nothing to do with it because they are two different things.
The ps3 isnt upgradable (besides some hard drives...), where as a computer is so it can keep up with current technology. The ps3 is as state of the art as a gaming "system" (not a pc) can be.

[scottyrob]

jwilson61904

Here's what I say about the price difference. I didn't buy a wireless adapter for my 360 and don't need one. Heck, I use an ethernet cable on my PS3 for an uninterrupted connection. Yes I paid $30 for two wireless chargers but had to pay $110 for two new DUALSHOCK3 controllers. Ouch! Don't watch blu-ray movies because I don't have an HDTV and really not in a rush to get one. Basically I bought both for games and honestly could get by with an arcade unit.

[Daguin25]

@ kalel33

I'm pretty sure your computer is the size of a refridgerator then. I bet not many people would want to drag a "state of the art" gaming computer to the living room and hook it up to their LCD TV to watch a movie, or enjoy a game with others for that matter, it sucks. Part of what makes the PS3 state of the art is all you get that functionality in a MUCH smaller package. Add on to that a sleek design, great hardware for demanding graphics, one standard multiplayer network, AND easy menu interface (as opposed to navigating computer menus). So in that sense it IS state of the art

[chrkeller]

I think the price of the ps3 is a steal for what it comes with (large HD, bluray, wifi, etc). However given a worldwide economy collapse people just are not going to lineup for high end electronics. Price of games should be cut by $10 as well. If there is a price cut I might consider getting a second one soley as a bluray player upstairs in my living room. I need a player up there and the ps3 is still one o the best.

Shame on Activision for saying 'change YOUR prices or else' , what needs to be done is WORK with Sony and the other game developers on getting the cost of the GAMES down. $60 bucks is way too much to pay for a game you'll get sick of in a month, and is a MAJOR driving force behind piracy.

[hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm]

They can not reduce the price of the games. Because sony choose a backward cell processor. This makes every game to be programed separately. It cost more to do this. The cost is sony fault.

They can not reduce the cost of games by 10 bucks or they will lose money.

[SteveW928]

@ hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm -
"They can not reduce the cost of games by 10 bucks or they will lose money."

Baloney. For most titles produced, they could reduce by $10 and be just fine. The only games where this is probably not the case, are the ones where they actually do go all out and fully utilize the potential of the system or major titles that took tons of work to produce, in which case they will easily sell 1M+ units... bringing the cost/unit down.

$60 is way too much to pay for a game you'll only play for a month... which is why in tough economic times, people are less likely to spend the $60 for cheap ports running only off marketing hype. I actually think the recession might help some of the better, more creative studios who really work to earn customers. Maybe Activision should try that route rather than their moaning.

[limbo89]

Activision has some of the most successful titles out there and will likely have its most successful year to date especially now that they have Blizzard Entertainment. This puts them in line to become the most prolific and successful video game producer in the world. That probability, whether you personally like their game catalog or not gives them a significant amount of clout and the right to encourage a flailing game console producer to reconsider their price structure. I don't think they are moaning as you say they are giving fair warning which whether you personally care for Activision or not they currently have the position to do so. The economic understanding and arguments you provide relating to the amount of money required to produce a high quality game are clearly emotional and not all that practical. Games and movies are pretty analigous in relation to what is successful. Some studios spend a tremendous amount of money and have a flop and some small companies get lucky and create a game that is innovative and successful and make it big. However, I would suggest that you look at the cost of producing the sequels to all the successful small studio breakthroughs. Anyone who balks at the cost of new games has a myriad of economical options ( rental programs, gamefly, grab a last generation console with a game catalog that is quite cheap. At the end of the day the market will bear out the acceptable cost of games and the $60 mark for new releases seems to be working. I've been playing vids since 1979 and I was paying $49.99 for Atari 800 Pacman back then which adjusted for inflation is far above $60. Consequently, if you want the cutting edge just as in any other sector of the consumer electronics entertainment industry (HDTV, smartphones, Ipods etc..) get used to paying a premium for these services. Its simple economics supply/demand and cost for increasingly dynamic and immersive gaming experiences. One thing I can promise we can bloviate all we want the prices of the newest video games are not coming down.
At the end of the day this is all a trickle down affect of Sony dropping the ball on their next gen console. It came out a year too late, it was way too expensive on release, and the exclusive content hasn't been enough to sway most folks. With the appearance of project Microsoft's project Natal and Nintendo's continuing broad appeal to non-traditional gaming communities I'm not sure there will be room for the PS3 and that is something Activision is seizing on as it does cost them a significant amount of money to port games generally originally written for the 360 to the PS3.

[tcr071]

They could reduce the prices of the game but because of the lower installed base they aren't going to do so.

400,000 copies at $60 nets $24 million.

480,000 copies at $50 nets $20 million.

Having to sell an extra 80,000 copies to make the same amount of money and the 400,000 is a low number for games being sold because they are routinely in the millions which would further increase the difference. I wouldn't do it if I owned a business and I'm certain that Activision won't either. What Activision wants is Sony to lower the entry level price so that more consumers can get their hands on a PS3 so that more consumers will buy Activision games. There are 28 million more Wii's out there and 8 million more Xbox 360's. That is a lot more potential customers than the PS3 has and the PS3 is easily the most expensive platform to develop for so the return on invest is going to be lower.

[SteveW928]

@ limbo89 -
"Some studios spend a tremendous amount of money and have a flop and some small companies get lucky and create a game that is innovative and successful and make it big."

I don't think I'd call it luck. Almost every title I own is an exclusive by a fairly small development house. The reason... they are really that good! I DL almost all the demos available, so I've played most of what the bigger studios have been shoveling out.... and I wouldn't pay $10 for many of the titles. There are a few exceptions, but largely, what the big studios have been putting out has been pretty low quality stuff. They are mainly just trying to ride off their PS2 fame or name recognition of titles, etc.... not creativity and effort putting into making the game good. Ports in general are going to usually be lowest common denominator in quality.

@ tcr071 -

There may be 8M more Xboxes (though the gap is closing).... but that doesn't change the fact that there are over 22M PS3s out there. That is a market plenty big enough to develop for even if the other platforms didn't exist. Sure, all developers want bigger markets... but the good devs for PS3 are doing just fine, and that will only get better.

[bryanskistherockies]

@limbo89

Your long story of your gaming is 1979 is completely contradictory.
He neglected to mention the price of the systems of the time.
The Atari 2600, one of the less expensive consoles of the time, cost $200 in 1979.
He then said he was paying $49.99 for games back then.
Well gee, I know of a console that retails for $200 today, can anybody tell me what the Wii's games retail for?
Oh yea, $49.99 and most are cheaper! (the shovelwear)
Hahaha, check mate. Your inflation argument is
negated. ;)

(Oh, and according to inflation, an Atari costing $200 in 1979 equals $700 today.)
That would make even the the PS3 a bargain.
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing guys.
And do your research.

[bryanskistherockies]

Oh, and as for inflation of the games themselves
$50 in 1979 = $175 today.
Bing inflation and see if these numbers are wrong.
King me!

[Xanthus179]

Lowering the cost of the PS3 won't change "attach rates." I've already purchased the console, changing the price now won't affect whether or not I buy a game from here on out.

And no, game prices are not more expensive than every other platform. Only someone that is clueless would say such a thing, as Xbox 360 games have always been the exact same price. Research your info.

[hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm]

not xbox 360, but pc games.

Wow.

[hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm]

ok. Did some research.

Grand Theft Auto IV
ps3 37.99
xbox360 36.99
pc 27.99

Fall out 3
ps3 59.99
xbox 360 56.99
pc 39.99

call of duty world war.
ps3 56.99
xbox 360 39.99
pc 26.99

Red faction Guerrilla
ps3 56.99
xbox 51.99
pc 39.99

PROTOTYPE
ps3 59.99
xbox 59.99
pc 49.99

Bioshock 2
ps3 59.99
xbox 59.99
pc 49.99

That is just random searching of newer games. Not even close.

[SteveW928]

I agree, I'm not going to buy a bad $60 game just because I saved $50 or $100 on the console. I buy the good games that I want... the console cost didn't change that any.

@ hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm -
And your point is?

[viper396]

@Xanthus179, This isn't about people who already own a PS3. This story isn't about you. This is about getting new people to make a hardware purchase.

Activision has less incentive to make more games for the PS3 is their aren't enough people with the hardware to play the games on.
It's simple. The games cost a fortune to make. Therefore the game companies need to make alot of sales to recoup their cost before they start making a profit. If the installed hardware base is smaller the odds of recouping their cost dimish. Therefore Sony needs to increase it's user base otherwise the games start to dwindle. The best way to increase hardware sales is to lower the price.

[SteveW928]

@ viper396 -

The article talked about 'attach rates'... so apparently this IS about people who own the console. I'd guess Activision believes that if people spend $100 less on the console, they are likely to buy 1 or 2 more titles.

The problem with this thinking is that the reason PS3 owners buy less titles, is that many of the titles are so compelling that people play them for longer. They don't buy a game, get sick of it in a month, sell/trade and buy more. In my experience, this is getting less common on the PS3 platform. I own 7 or 8 titles, but really only play 3 of them often... and only 1 of them like 80% of the time. I probably won't buy any more until I start getting sick of these games. (the one I play 80% of the time... Warhawk... I've been playing for over a year and a half now... so I have no idea when this will be).

My guess is that this is less the case with the Xbox crowd, as they seem to think the 'huge library' of the Xbox is some kind of advantage... and seem to have picked the Xbox largely for this reason. Most of this 'huge library' that I've seen is far less compelling than what I'm playing on the PS3 though... Mostly old 'hit' titles with new graphics or themes pasted on as sequels. Sure, if you buy those, then you'll want another one in a month... which is exactly what companies like Activision want... that way they don't have to get creative and actually work hard for the $.

[fetak11]

@ hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm

I do not agree with the prices... The prices of 360 and PS3 games are exactly the same... The reasons why it is cheaper for PC is
1) A lot of the games are made of PC (with high lvl graphics) and then put into other gaming consoles...
2) All of my friends that are PC gamers never buy PC games... THey download them

So you can also do the illegal thing for the consoles, but if you do, your warranty is not valid, and honestly not many people do that... so I think they should drop both things by $10... So many games sell a lot unless they are some cheap Activision games... Why in the world do they care... Activision is provoking Sony. SOny should sue Activision.

Next thought about the gaming consoles... Everything that every1 said is good but forgetting one marketing move that microsoft is making. They give out a cheap version of xbox which generally (i do not know anyone) that has the arcade... Everyone buys the hard drive and no one even friend of friend of friend has ever purchased an arcade. Because then they say I save money when I get the more expensive version. The hard drive and this and that is worth more than $100. so I get that, but in your mind you only see the cheap price... If someone is following then you understand. Sony does not put this BS about cheap cuz they know that so many people will want the internet and stuff like that... Also one more thing

WHen your getting a console... Don't get the cheap one and replace it 5x... Get the more expensive one and don't replace it... So when you're buying a console, honestly you have enough money for the more expensive ones...

And honestly the game devs will not lower prices cuz they make a lot of money $60. Lets say store gets $10 and the shipping and making is $10. Don't forget they ship more than x number of copies so the economies of scale are lower for each additional unit shipped. So the game devs get all the money really... Let's say the publisher company gets $10... That is still $30 which is profit for the effing dev company... THey sell a lot of copies and make profit...

Activision some games you make are good but don't be provoking and don't be greedy.

[shldvebnacwby]

I agree with DMAN3k. I currently own a PS3 and I only own 4 or 5 games for it, one of which came with the console. The reason I don't have more games is that I can't justify spending $60 on one, with very, very few exceptions. I've become even more adverse to the $60 games when I can buy good ones for PS2 for $10-20. So what if the graphics aren't as good. I care far more about gameplay than graphics, which probably explains why I own (and still play) ps1-era games. It seems recently that publishers are using the graphics advancements as an excuse to neglect the parts that matter most to me. Even if the console were cheaper, it wouldn't make any difference. The games either need to get better to justify the extra cash or the price of games needs to come down to a reasonable level.

That being said, I think that a price cut would be good for product adoption, but the bigger factor is the price of the games.

[SteveW928]

Yep.... the problem is that most games aren't worth $60. The ones that are, I buy. However, most of the bad titles aren't worth $10 less either... or even $20 less. Most of what Activision makes, I wouldn't pay $10 for. Maybe that is their problem... not the price of the PS3 console. I gladly $60 for games that I love... like Warhawk, Killzone2, Burnout Paradise, Gran Turismo, etc. I also buy add-on content. Ex: for Warhawk, I bought every map-pack they released at like $8 or $9 a pop... so they just made another $25 on me... and I'd buy more if they made them.

[lazycat202]

i'm with you this time ;) i don't mind to pay extra $$ for a good console that fits my need (better graphic, wireless, blue-ray, rechargeable shocked controller, ect... The problem is video game makers. $60 for a game? gezzz

[SteveW928]

$60 for a good game is fine... just not the majority of titles out there these days. Like someone mentioned in an earlier post... paying like $50 for Atari 800 games. I seem to recall that too... so as they said, adjusted for inflation and cost of living, etc.... $60 is a pretty good deal in comparison.

[Sardonik]

Psh, for $400 you could easily upgrade a windows PC to a gaming computer.

[Carrick1973]

Not a bad idea, and I did that many times over the years, but after awhile, I got tired of the constant upgrading/configuring/patching and trying to figure out why a game might not be compatible with certain hardware components. I got a PS3 after taking a XBox 360 back because I just wanted to be able to turn a game on and play it, without having to worry about upgrading (PC), or hardware failure (XBOX 360). I also had a hell of a time getting my PC connected to the component inputs on my projector.

[jfrdricks2009]

You spend more time downloading updates to the ps3 than actually playing a game.

[Ray180]

I think lowering the price of games would actually do more harm than good. I can't imagine 3rd party developers would be happy about such a move since they already have enough trouble recouping their costs. I suspect this would force developers to either shift their focus to another platform or scale back budgets on future PS3 games, which would erode the quality of Sony's library. The only way Sony is going to stay in this game is to lower the hardware price or offer a more compelling reason (read: exclusive titles) to buy a PS3 other than blu-ray, which most people still don't give a fig about.

[SteveW928]

Sony already has the best exclusives! What most of these studios are whining about on the PS3 is that they can't just quickly port their cr*p titles over to it like they do the other platforms (why they don't like the cell processor and specialized chips, etc.). The people who complain about Sony's library haven't played any of them. I don't need hundreds of worthless titles... just give me a few awesome ones. Some of the independent studios have really come through on this, and I gave them my $60 gladly. That companies like Activision can't figure this out is their loss.

I suppose the problem for Sony is that many idiots (I mean, potential customers) make the decision based on stupid stuff like how many cr*p ports from big studios are available..... so unfortunately, Sony probably has to listen to their whining a bit. If the customer base were all smarter, they could probably just tell Activision to take a flying leap.

[rucknrun]

Don't forget the 50 bucks a year for XBox live.

[FBDMatt]

xbox>psn so that isn't a factor

[SteveW928]

@ FBDMatt -

So, what does xbox live do that PSN doesn't? It pretty much does everything I need it to do for free. The only thing I wish they would add is an overall voice chat that worked no matter what games people are in (which I understand xbox live has a form of). However, I've also heard from friends that own and play both that xbox live is much buggier than PSN.

[joebuck90]

i will gladly pay 50 dollars for xbox live cause it is that much better than ps3 crap online

[SteveW928]

@ joebuck90 -

Umm.... and this would be because?

[rucknrun]

I love my playstation. I use it mainly as a media server and Blue Ray player. I can watch any of 75 movies I have at the push of a button. The games for the PS3 are catching up.

[SteveW928]

Catching up? I bought my PS3 because of the games available. I can't really think of any game I'm missing by having a PS3 over an XBox. Possibly Halo. It is a good game. But, with Warhawk and Killzone2, I don't feel I'm missing much. Many would say either of those games is substantially better than Halo.

Can someone name a game on Xbox I can't get on PS3 that I should want? I can't think of any.

[Jawknee1]

I think Sony knows what they are doing. its premature to say Sony has lost. This generation is not going to be over for a alot time. For what you get with the PS3 $400 is not bad at all. I paid $500 for my 60gb model and have never regreted it. When you add up the cost of all the add-ons you need to get for the Xbox to compete with the features of the PS3 you end up spending anywere from 50 to 150 dollars more on your Xbox then the PS3. And you still dont get a Blue Ray player. Activision is bluffing. They wont pull support for Sony. if they do, they will lose money. A lot of it. I dont know what Activision is trying to achieve with this statement.

[kaplang11]

Finally! Some one that understands the big picture. Yes, Activision is bluffing. I agree. They don't want to loose the business

[SteveW928]

Yea... just go look at the unit sales of Activision titles on each platform. Sure, they sell a bit less on the PS3 platform for most of them, but they would be crazy to give up those sales in the overall picture.

The number of units difference between the platforms is hardly big enough to be relevant. It might be different if say Xbox was 50M and PS3 was 1M... but that isn't the case.... it is like 23M vs 30M. Not that big of a deal.

[viper396]

@SteveW928, You're just a fanboy. You are hardly in a position to determine whether a 23M vs 30M difference is that big of a deal. A 7 million difference is a huge deal especially when you are at the bottom and that 7 million translates to billions in lost sales. Companies have fallen over much less.

[Aerodark13]

Activision just wants to look like they're on the gamers side by calling for cheaper prices. In reality, they're just covering the fact that they will be raising the price of the next Guitar Hero bundle to $200. Even if they decided to bail (highly unlikely) its not like the PS3 will be missing out on any good games that others can't take the place of. (or already do better)

[mdub311]

I've been saying this for months. Sony HAS dropped the price of the PS3 through rebates. Sure you have to do a little leg work on your part, but I got mine for $250! So if you're a smart consumer, you don't pay full price...EVER! I've bought all my games on sale for no more than $40 (quality titles too like Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, Sean White Snowboarding and NBA 2k9 to name a few) and that's with free shipping and no tax. Don't talk to me about price cuts and dropping prices of all games. Only suckers pay full price!

[Promeee]

For everyone who is talking about how much you'd need to spend to get the 360 in line with PS3 features, you are assuming that people want these features enough to spend the extra for them. For instance, a wired network connection to the console is more reliable and if available, why would a person need wireless? The PS3 has Blu-Ray which also may or may not matter to a consumer and that is presumably a big part of the cost. Those other media features? Great if you were planning to buy it as something other than a game console but since the only market they seem to be getting any traction at all in is hardcore gamers, that doesn't seem to be the case... The point is, Sony spent a lot of extra money packing in features that are probably great but if they aren't features a consumer plans to use their value for that consumer becomes exactly ZERO.

If they want to keep the price the same and get people to buy it, they need to start marketing the features. Standing up and saying what a great "value" their console is because of all the technology inside it isn't enough. Start running ads showing people using all these great features - watching Blu-ray with a great home theater set-up, doing slide shows and whatever else. Things like At Home or home or whatever it's called. That doesn't look like the product of an expensive console, it looks like an online version of something that already exists for all consoles. An integraded version of Sims isn't going to sell a $400 system.

Nobody cares how much it costs to make. If they can't justify how it's going to make yours and my lives more interesting why are we going to spend more money on it? Want to see how to make this work? Look at Apple.

[Jawknee1]

maybe they want them maybe they dont. For the people buying the Elite models(which cost the same) are getting ripped off. The Arcade is a rip as well. No hard drive? seriously? for a system plagued with as many defects as it is, this thing should cost $99 to $199. Not $199 to $399. Rip off.

[spiterod]

You're right. And the truth is that with the coming instant on 1080p movie streaming, and soon to follow full game downloads/streaming, it will be obvious that the blu-ray disk is an expensive unnecessary device. The PS3 at its price point is not worth it, especially when there is competition that out does it on basically every front.

[Carrick1973]

@spiterod - yes, that's true, but for all those people who wanted to save all that money by getting an xbox arcade, how on earth are they going to download games and stream HD content? I doubt they will be able to stream true HD content, and if they do, the cable companies are going to have a field day with usage fees and capped bandwidth. I wouldn't doubt if people would have to pay 100 bucks a month on internet when that comes around, and then try making an argument about how the xbox is so much of a value.

[ArsFragica]

Activision sucks. Bungie FTW =)

[kaplang11]

Here is my solution so pay attention. Everyone should buy the Sony PS3 and not any other game. Not Wii, not Xbox and not Guitar Coward. Then!! Sony will start making a sizable profit and can pass a savings along to the consumer in the cost of games. It is simple economics.

[hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm]

I wish that was true. In truth it does not work like that. See sony makes money off games not consoles. The higher the price for the game, which is sony's fault for creating the worthless cell processor, the more likely people are going to buy used.

Buying used does not make sony money.

The amount made from new games has not and will not exceed the cost of the platform, which is by definition a failed product.

The whole gaming division, console, game, and support, lost 2.9 billion dollars last year, predicating a lost of 2 billion this year.

If everyone bought a ps3, it would make that deeper, they are still losing money per console. The cost of the games will not go down, because a lot of the games are being resold used.

It is a no win for anyone.

Heck even microsoft gaming division took 6 years to actually show profit. And they can sell their product.

[SteveW928]

@ hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm -

Umm.... Sony's gaming division was the only division of the company to make a PROFIT in these tough economic times. I'm not sure why you are talking about loss.

[Renegade Knight]

@hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm

Your a sharp cookie. Just not quite there in your logic.
If everone bought PS3 sony would make bank. More PS3 games (old and new) would be sold. Sony would make Bank. Nintendo and MicroSoft woul be left saying "***?" and kick into high hear and lower prices or introduct some upgrades folks really want. Sony would have to respond by lowring prices (now that they are making bank it would be possible). Why the lower price for Sony? They don't really need to upgrade the console.

It's premature to call the PS3 a failed product. We will see how it stacks up in a couple of years. My Wii collects dust. My 360 gets played but just red ringed. We use the PS3 more overall and have only scratched it's potential.

[SteveW928]

@ Renegade Knight -

I think hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm is talking about the price the PS3 sells for vs what it costs Sony to build it. They actually used to lose money on each one sold... but I think this has now changed. So, yea... if you're losing on each console and not making it back up in games or content sold, then selling more would be a bad thing. But, they do make it up in content and are now making a profit on each console. It was the same with the PS2. Sony really pushes the technology for a longer life-span of the console, and tends to lose money initially until the components get combined and reduced in price to a point where this changes and then they make profit for the rest of its life-span.

That is why the PS3 is actually such a great deal. Until fairly recently, you were actually getting MORE hardware than you were paying for. Sony was subsidizing the cost. It is kind of like buying an iPhone for $99.... it costs WAY more than that to make them, but Apple and the phone companies make it back up in the plans you sign up for. Similar here... they make it back up in games and content. If everyone went out and bought a PS3 and just used it as a network video player, or ran Folding@home on it, etc... it would fail as a product as Sony would overall lose money (at least till recently).

[darkr]

@ SteveW928


"Umm.... Sony's gaming division was the only division of the company to make a PROFIT in these tough economic times. I'm not sure why you are talking about loss."

where are you getting your numbers
check sony's financial papers (direct from sony)

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/08q4_sony.pdf

for the last three years the gaming division which includes the gaming hardware division and software has been at loss at the billions (sony compter entertainment )
at the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5
sony clearly states that game division is operating at a loss wiuth only ps2 and psp gaining any foothold
and that dispite increased software sales they still losing money

the only thing that kept sony in the black was the digital camera and entertainment division (movies and music)

please research your stuff before critizing other comments

[SteveW928]

@ darkr -

It looks like you are correct and I was in error. I know I read that somewhere... but maybe they got mixed up on quarter vs. year or something. Still, they did the best other than the Picture group. I guess we'll have to see how it goes future quarters... but the gaming division is hardly failing when seen in context.

[coal686--2008]

"For its part, Sony, which is mired in third place behind Nintendo and Microsoft in the next-gen game-console wars,..."

Since the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3 have been out for a while now, we really should quit calling them "next gen consoles". Are the Gamecube, original Xbox, and PS2 then "current gen consoles"? Will the PS3 be current gen when the PS4 comes out?

[jfrdricks2009]

We are currently in the current gen cycle. ps3 360 and wii are current gen. Whatever is announced will be NEXT gen since they are not out yet. Get it?

[spiterod]

Sony has the right plan going on now. They can't lower the price without seriously cutting into their bottom line. The dollar has lost a good 20% since the PS3 came out, so they are already giving Americans a 20% discount. Besides, this is a good time to support an American company.

[jvogt311]

Sony isn't an American company.

If you really want to support one though, Microsoft is.

[ropo153]

jvogt311, I pretty sure that all Xbox 360s are made in Mexico, not the US.

[Kaden101]

The internet as a whole seems to make out that the PS3 isn't selling, but the install base is going up at approximately the same speed as the 360, it just isn't catching up at the moment. Was Activision pulling this stunt on Microsoft when they had an install base of 23 million, I don't think they were.

They are just jumping on the "Sony needs a PS3 price cut" bandwagon as that seems to be the thing to do at the moment. It isn't like Sony is forcing you to buy a PS3. It's a premium product at a premium price, if you don't like it, go get a 360, or a Wii.

Activision won't drop the PS3 as it's cost effective to port games for more sales, & the quality of ports is a lot better these days (apart from that Ghostbusters debacle), & multiplatform games (with the exception of maybe Modern Warfare) are just there to pass the time until the platform exclusives arrive.

360 owners are waiting for Forza 3 & Halo 47, or Gears 3, or Alan Wake. PS3 owners are waiting for God of War III, GT5, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2 etc. These are the titles people want & are way more highly anticipated than then most multiplatform games.

[brandon0007]

I have a couple of replies to make about some comments made on here. Let's start off with the price of the games. I'm not going to get into all of the fancy figures, but I say that you should look into the prices of things before you buy them. Don't buy something you can't afford later on down the road, then complain about it, honestly. Unless you don't have a job or truly are living check by check, then you shouldn't have a problem dropping 60 dollars every other month or so on a game. I hate to break it to you, nothing is going to come cheap anytime soon and don't expect it to just yet.

The comment made about Microsoft giving you a "choice." That's pure bull in my honest opinion. Their goal is not to give you a "choice", but to make the Xbox 360 appear cheap on the store shelves. If you're going to get a Xbox 360, then you're most likely going to want to get the full advantage of it (Xbox live, music, etc). Microsoft is right up there with Sony when they try to push the "all around entertainment" statement and you're not getting that with the Arcade Xbox 360. Their whole plan is for you to get a cheap Xbox 360 and spend the money later on down the road when you realize that you just bought a stripped down system ,and you should of just went out and bought the Xbox 360 that came with everything already in the package in the first place.

It's 2009, people. MOST people by now have wireless Internet, high definition televisions. It's becoming the new standard. And the people who haven't went there yet are slowly heading in that direction. People who go out to buy a new TV most of the time end up with a HD TV. People who go out and get a new desktop and laptop ends up switching to wireless Internet. It's the people who are still stuck with standard TV's and cable Internet that's complaining about this "choice" bull. Sony did nothing wrong for wanting to offer you everything in one package. It's a smart idea and part of why the Playstation 3 will be around for ten years. Because guess what, the Xbox 360 will be doing the same exact thing next generation, but it won't be blown out of proportion when that happens.

[roachbrain]

See it's funny when you get good comments like this "none bias and well thought out" no one seems to comment on it.

Good job if only the writer at Cnet were as good and honest.

[jfrdricks2009]

no one is FORCING you to buy an external hard drive. HENCE they are CHOICES.

[Aerodark13]

Of course it was Microsoft's goal to make the X360 appear cheaper rather than give people "choice." It still doesn't change the fact that even though getting everything in one package is the smarter choice, $200 for an X360 will still look more appealing to the casual gamer or frugal shopper than a $400 PS3 even if there's a high probability that the ones that go with the X360 arcade will likely spend the same amount if not more in the long run.

Of course many do exactly that and like when buying that new HDTV from Best Buy, the profit is made on the overly priced HDMI cables, accessories, and warranties the employees will try to push on you not the TV itself. Microsoft has to make a fortune on those ridiculously overpriced hard drives. I'm sure there's also people who have shelled out $100 for a wireless router as well. Its just better business for Microsoft. They are increasing their install base (thereby making publishers like Activision happy) as well as profiting on all those ridiculous accessories. Plus, when you have a stripped down system like the X360 arcade, your in the better position for a price drop when sales slump as you can expect returns on the hardware that's not included. Sony doesn't likely have that option until they can lower manufacturing costs.

Of course Sony isn't really in danger since the hardware in the PS3 suggests a long lifespan similar to the PS2. Then again that may not be true if digital distribution really hits off before Blue ray can become a permanent staple in most households.

I can see why Activision would push for a PS3 price cut. It would increase their number of potential buyers at no cost to them. Of course it is rather funny that the call for a price cut came from Activision who are themselves increasing the prices of their games.

[Prince_Of_Chaos]

To be fair to Sony, their price isn't bad. People shouldn't complain about cheaper games either. If your unsure about a game, they have places where you can rent it (blockbuster, gamefly) and see if you actually want it in your library. If you get a game and don't like it just go turn it in and get something else. It's not really rocket science. Sony can't make a cheaper model because of the blu-ray that the games are made on. it would cost extra money to do that and then they make no profit. I hate Sony and have a 360 but I would never say ps3 cost too much. Their the same price. if you complain about the price, then go get a Wii and shut the hell up. I'm no Fanboy but to me the 360 just has the games that are more exciting to me. Don't listen to no one else when you decide on a system. You need to look at the pros and cons that appeal to you. Don't get any game console because you couldn't afford the one you want. Just save up and wait. That's why there are always these dumb debates about what's better then what because people just got any system and now their stuck with it and have to protect their invest. No system is better then the other because it comes down to the games and most games are on all systems. I know people are going to talk about PS3 has this and 360 has that so its better. It doesn't matter what has what if it's not something you want to play. Sony shouldn't make anything cheaper till of course the next system comes out.

[robvme]

By allowing for incremental improvement and upgrades it allows the consumer to budget for a better system. Sony is an all or nothing proposition. So, entry costs matter as anyone who is uncertain will mitgate risk with a lower outlay of cash initially and if they choose to become a dedicated gamer, of course they are going to buy the extra gadgetry. The most important thing to consider is, "what utility do I get from the purchase?" That answer is going to be different for everyone. I have a Wii, and I don't use it all that often, I get hardly any utility. My Xbox, I play on a daily basis. I am getting no "mileage" out of my Wii at all. In fact, it was wasted money in my case. So tell me, what's more expensive? Buying something you won't use, or buying something that you get a lot of enjoyment out of? I think it is pretty clear. Now, if a company that makes games needs "x" to break even and .10x to make a nominal profit and can't get that from PS3, XBox, or Wii then of course it makes sense to reduce one's costs. I don't know what makes a PS3 more difficult to develop on nor do I know the differences in royalties, but apparently Activision is not meeting expectations on that platform. Is it greed? Probably. Is there too small an audience for their games on PS3? Possible. Does Sony think that it deserves a premium for a product they percieve to be superior? Certainly. Problem is, the market decides. Everyone on this board will spend according to their preferences and unfortunately for Sony, the preference for their system falls way below what they expected and that is hurting them badly. Many consoles have come and gone, even some that were far more superior in terms of capability than their competition. The bad bet was Blu-Ray adoption, nobody seems to care about it and it certainly is not the boom that the DVD was over VHS.