Comments on: Activision CEO calls for PS3 price cut

In an interview with the London Times, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick says that Sony has to cut the price of the PS3--now.

[Mnester1]

It was just recently that EA came out and stated that Sony was the biggest profit contributer to EA this last fiscal year. If this is the case (and Microsoft has 7 million more consoles out there) than how can Activision be blubbering tears all over the place. It would seem to me that they have some sort of a poor business model that is unfavorable for profit!

[Preime]

That may be the case for all of sony's games tech, considering they have 3 different platforms, vs 1 for Microsoft, but the sales figures for the PS3 versions of EA games fall considerably behind those of the 360. VGchartz shows 27 PS2 games in the top 50 of all EA sales, but only 1 PS3 and 4 x 360.

[klm82006]

You morons just dont get it do you? It only cost $10.00 to produce a game on Blu-Ray and $5.00 on DVD.
That is huge profit for games companies. I know you have to add the cost of research but price go down soon after the game is made. Do your math and do some research and you'll know it cost very little to make game.

[wimpytx93]

Xbox absolutely *********** I basically bought it to play halo and thats about it. yeah the price of and Xbox is attractive $199 or $249 w/e the hell it its i payed $300 for mine. But when you start to include the price of xbox live and everything else all the simple things that SHOULD come free sheesh! its like Microsoft charges an arm an a leg for everything, and then on top of that they want to give you a system that had 33% rate of having RROD defects! My PS3 however has paid for itself, there are soo many uses for it blueray,web browsing, running linux w/e. I think Ps3 it just too nxt generation for everyone, but people will eventually catch up then Microsoft will be in trouble they have already hindered their game play by only being able to play dvd's. DVD's meens less content can fit on the disc so in the very near future graphics and gameplay on the platform will be on a plato, where as PS3 had 30-40gb on a blueray disc to work with

On the other hand a must say when my Xbox broke they sent me another when in like a week, Theyve got the system down its common practice :) PS3 FTW!

[mrjetsondc]

Gay

[sirsparky]

I used to by only Sony.
You NEVER got burned by them.
Then they let go of their manufacturing plants and opted to have their stuff built by the lowest bid outside suppliers. It's been downhill from there.
I think the PS3 is a fantastic system and hardware. It may not be for the Walmart crowd (no offense, I shop there too). Sony (like Apple) understands that giving the consumer a premium experience translates into the option of charging more.
22million unit's is VERY GOOD, but it's not going to win the race.
Lower the price of Blu Rays. You can buy DVD's for 6.99, while the Blu Ray of the same title is 30 bucks!
It's CRAZY. By the time they wise up, it will be GAME OVER.

Advice: turn the PS3 into a audiophile grade music server and advertise this.
Another market share that a simple software update could capture.
The PS3 is a swiss army knife of a computer. It's up to Sony to offer more than just overpriced games and movies.

[lannyfisher]

Those who complain about the price of the PS3 are just CHEAP or POOR, and buy the XBOX because its little-kid games and substandard graphics are "good enough" for their unsophisticated needs.

[fault360]

From Valves Software President Gabe Newell at the annual DICE Summit.

On the PC-only Steam service, a wide range of prices are attached to games, and attractive weekend deals throw more pricing variability into the mix. Although Valve was initially afraid that volatility or variability in pricing would confuse or anger its customers--or even cannibalize retail sales--Newell says that was not all the case.

?In fact, it dramatically increased sales. Illustrating his point, Newell showed the results of a Left 4 Dead promotion Valve ran last weekend, which cut the price of the game in half to $25. The discount (and promise of new content for the game) rocketed sales of the game on Steam by 3,000 percent.
"We sold more in revenue this last weekend than we did when we launched the product," says Newell. "We were driving a huge uptick in revenue and attracting new customers." And while people believe that we're "screwing" retail, Newell showed that brick-and-mortar sales were unaffected by the online discount.
This phenomenon is not limited to Valve games. Over the holidays, Steam discounted third-party titles. Sales increased 300 percent and units-sold increased by 600 percent.
Still skeptical? Newell said that a weekend sale of one third-party title drove that game's sales up by 18,000 percent and units-sold increased 36,000 percent. It energized the user base, says Newell. When the sale ended, baseline sales were double what they were prior to the weekend discount."

Just goes to show that $60 a game is not the only way to go.

[bridgerbot]

Dear Activision,

most of your games are crap. The some of the games made by companies that you own are pretty good. Thanks for slapping your name on them. Feel free to not publish any more PS3 games but allow the companies you own to continue to publish PS3 games.

Don't let the door hit you in the .... on the way out.

[kelmon]

Personally speaking, I have not bought a PS3 due to the price. If it was reduced by, say, $100 or more then I would actively consider buying one. However, whether I would necessarily buy many games is another question because the price of them is pretty steep as well.

[superdynamite]

When did the Activision CEO become CFO of SCEA???

Lower the price of the games, then you can talk.

[roachbrain]

True if they are so concerned about price drop on the PS3 why not lead by example and start lowering the prices on there games. I mean according to there logic cheaper brings in more money then by all means gives us $40 dollar games with $60 dollar quality.

[Preime]

Sony's PS3 is pretty good value for the amount of goodies you get, so I don't think that a price drop is sensible, or even necessary.
Sony need to start looking at why, with an install base of over 20 million, they still can't get sell as many games per console as MS or Nintendo can. Killer titles like Killzone 2, LBP or MGS4. They have roughly 25% less consoles that the 360, so It would be fair to expect their total sales figures to be roughly 1/4 less than Microsoft. However they don't even manage to get more than 4 titles in the top all-time sales figures (9 for the 360) and have one game that has breached the 5 million mark (vs 5 for the 360).
Now look at the amount of articles over the last 2 years that have praised the PS3 as the best value Blu-Ray player, and consider how many people have subsequently purchased a PS3 for that function only? There you have a heavily subsidised games console, whose profitability relies on future games purchases, being solely used for its added value feature. Great for Blu-ray, bad news for Sony's bottom line. It would be fascinating to see some market research into that.
Finally it would be great to see a side-by-side cost comparison in developing and licensing game for the 360 vs for the PS3. Plus how much does it cost a game company to host the online presence of such a game on both consoles? I think here lies the real issue of profitability for a games developer.

[roachbrain]

People are so lame; Sony is not in any trouble of anything. They still sell PS3 unit plus PSP, PS2, and the software is still moving on the PS3 just fine. Activision needs to either make there games cheaper or just make better games if they want to see more profit.

Just for kicks a little insight into my fanboyizm for Sony's PS3. First I wait in line for my 360 at launch for 12 hours just to get it home and realize that anything out on it I could have just gotten on my old xbox or PS2. Then I pay for Live and use it for a few months get some content off it. I decide If don't use it as often why have if for now so I don't renew it ;there went my DL content since you need an active account to use them in game. Then after many RROD (one that I actually had to pay for and last supposed repaired unit that scratched my already easily scratch able CDs) I decide to sell my 360 and games and used it toward my PS3. I couldn't be happier now with my PS3 and its great support of games, free online service, and Blu-ray. Say what you need to say but Sony won me over with a quality unit supported by a quality library of games; which makes it well worth its price.

[stretch73]

Anybody saying they're waiting for a $100 price drop is missing out on a lot for what's really not that much money. I didn't really think I'd use the internet capability for my PS3 but the first thing I do now when I get home is run Pandora. I got rid of cable TV because virtually any show worth watching is available through hulu.com. And as far as Blu Ray not being worth it? Whatever. The difference between Blu Ray, admittedly on a high definition TV, and DVD is like the difference between DVD and VHS. If you're a movie enthusiast, once you see it you have to have it. As for the games, $60 is the new price point, deal with it. I bought 'Infamous' a couple of weeks ago and I've easily gotten between 30 and 40 hours of play out of it and I still haven't finished it. That's coming in at under $2 an hour for entertainment. Short of free, like going outside for a walk (right), it doesn't get much better than that.

I think Sony's done a pretty good job of holding their own on the price thing and I think if the economy were better, the $100 really wouldn't be that much of a sticking point. It's a personal preference of whether or not to save the money, I'm just glad I was in a position to shell out the 400 bones. The PS3 is awesome.

[bridgerbot]

I generally agree with your above post. However I have a different opinion on the price of individual games.

"As for the games, $60 is the new price point, deal with it."

When I was in 4th grade, I paid $60 for Castelvania III on the NES. I watched the price fall to $20 a year or two later. That trend, has been consistent with 95% of the video games I've seen.

I don't usually pay $60 for a video game. I often wait 12 months and it usually falls to $20-$30. They aren't falling as quite as fast as the used to, but if you look around, and wait for some deals, there's rarely a reason to pay more than $30-$40.

Now, in the last year, I've also noticed that more and more games are keeping the $60 pricetag and not falling, but if you are still willing to wait and shop around, you can get a lot of good games for $30.

[sav1981]

I don't know what the heck is wrong with Sony. Gamers no matter which console they favor will eventually buy the system they hate because of certain games that they can't play on their current console. PS3 owners will eventually buy 360, Wii, or both and vice versa. I'm pretty sure that the price of the PS3 scares people from buying it and to point out that the average customer especialy parents doesn't see value first they see price and then think about value. So if Sony just cut the price even by $50 this will help them to be more competitive, but selling 22m in 2 years at their current price is amazing considering the economy and the fact that the 360 sells at $199.

[alexacker]

What's up with these massive condom ads? Seems a little distracting, no?

[roachbrain]

It mainly to get the attention of 360 owners; you know to keep them from multiplying. Luckly they hardly get laid anyways since they can't even afford and extra $100 bucks for a better all around system.

[Tech Diva XXX]

I think the best console IS the PS3 in terms of build quality and features, BUT...

I think Sony now needs to offer a lower cost non-Blu Ray option in addition to the full featured one. I prefer the new stand alone Blu Ray players, they've gotten better and also offer tons of features. I'd prefer a gaming console for games mainly, not always for hi def movies(secondary). Pushing Blu Ray on EVERYONE who gets a PS3 whether they need or want it or not , may no longer be the best option. It was a good idea when Blu Ray players were expensive and bare bones, but that's not true anymore. This may be one reason why the Xbox does so well, it emphasizes GAMING first and foremost to gamers instead of movie playing. Which is probably what a GAME console should do.

Also deliberately making the PS3 harder to develop for as they admitted to in the past, and charging seemingly very high license fees, may be rubbing the game makers the wrong way and one is now getting vocal.

I think Sony is making some mistakes trying to keep the PS3 "exclusive". The PS3 IS a good deal but making things unnecessarily difficult for game makers and uselessly more expensive to some consumers isn't good.

[Darthbane17]

Sony could not offer a PS3 without a Blu-ray player, because the games are on Blu-Ray discs. So if Sony offers a lower end model with out a Blu-Ray player the PS3 could only play DVD's and no games. This stripped down version of the PS3 would be a worse value than the base Xbox360. What Sony could do instead is offer one without built in wireless or a hard drive to compete with the Arcade Xbox 360, or sell the base model with wired controllers.

I love my PS3, I didn't mind paying almost 500 dollars for the system and a game. I looked at value and reliability when i made my purchase and the PS3 beats the Xbox 360 in both categories. And with many awesome exclusives coming out in the next year the PS3 will match or surpass the Xbox 360 in # of good games.

[flyngmdgt]

yeah this is true, the gaming companies, even after development costs and salaries to pay are making 15-30 dollars, depending on the game. the systems as it is are not making any money at all for the companies. the ps3 last time i checked cost approx 600 to manufacture the $400 dollar one. weird math? you bet but it pays off in th end, so long as you do good in sales of other stuff, any sony is not. so the idea of selling the ps3 cheaper, is in fact the best long term and short term option. the short term effects are that more people will be inclined to buy if they get a ps3 which is loaded with many more out of the box features for the same price as a decent xbox. long term effects are that they will make more moeny off of the consumer by selling products like games and hardware, so long as the game are up to par with consumer demands, which i find to be the main problem with sales on the ps3. im neither a devoted fan to ps3 or xbox so im unbiased when i say these statements. if sony wants to improve sales liek they did with the ps2, they need to do a few of the following things:

1) when a game is out for a while and sales drop, but not before they become dead, they need to lower the price of the game by $10 dollar increments sooner. they do normally after the first year but that too much time, make it about every 6-10 months, somewhere in that categorie. if you decrease games prices according to minor slips in sales the game will stay afloat for a long time. remember SOCOM: combined assault? possibly the best playstation game ive ever played. i still do almost daily. 3 years later, which brings me to
2) make better titles. your exclusives are amazing. anything beyond that is seldom successful in sales. your money makers are god of war and metal gear solid. microsofts? gears of war, halo, YOUR GTA games, all those zombie games, sports games etc. what they have in common? awesome movie-like story lines and stellar online play. take hints, sony.

you can't blame sony for all the problems with sales though, the ps2 was when the economy was good and running smooth, hardware was cheaper, after inflation, but looking at the sales most of the units sold were years after it came out. so if you implicate what i said, which is what almost all yor fanbase is, in a couple short years you might come out in second. sorry sony, nintendo will always dominate you at this point. but you can go for the xbox :]

[jfrdricks2009]

How about Activision make some games that people actually want to play?

[Rotkros]

The short answer is : No, they should not. Not with what you get with the system. PERIOD.

[Chimlim]

The problem is that the PS3 is just too expensive. Yes I know it has all those cool features, but with the 360 you don't have to pay so much up front.

If the PS3 was the excat same price as the 360 since it was released, it would be crushing the 360. But why pay $200 more for a system that can pretty much play the same games?