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.

[kewell82]

The next generation console's games will cost $70. Each time there is a new console the price goes up $10. Which is why I think the Wii is still last generation because their games cost $50. The standard now is $60 games and everyone just wait and see....The next generation of consoles the games will cost $70 then everyone will whine some more.

[bridgerbot]

"Each time there is a new console the price goes up $10."

Um, that's not true. I bought Castelvania III for the NES new for $60. Keep in mind, the NES is in the third generation of video game consoles, the Wii and PS3 are in the seventh. The cost of new games has been $40-$60 for years (with few exceptions). Now sure, some have been released at $39.95, $49.95, and $59.95. Recently the shift has been to more at $59.95.

Originally, the plan was for the PS3 to have $100 games, and people were so pissed about it that they went to $60.

[kewell82]

Dude you totally got ripped off with that Castelvania III game for $60. Also the Seventh? How far back are you going...Pong? Can you imagine $100 games? I think that I would give up on gaming.

[bridgerbot]

"Dude you totally got ripped off with that Castelvania III game for $60."

That was how much it cost new off of the shelf at the release date back in 1990. That was actually MSRP.

"Also the Seventh?"

Yep,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)

Almost, I'm going all the way back to Atari.

[ZodiacPup64]

Oh come on! If you want cheap gaming experience, go buy an old console or an old computer. If you want to buy new, there's always net-tops.

If you want anything extra, it will cost you extra, like top notch graphics on a gaming console or wi-fi connectivity, etc. As if XBox 360, Wii and PS3 were the only choices. Now I agree game prices have climbed up, but also have done that in graphics quality.

Now I own a Wii and a X360. Those are good platforms. I don't care 'bout Hi-Def 'cause my eyesight is poor, so I can stay away from spending on those bells and whistles.

[killa08]

Its funny how ppl dont get the point....the ps3 is not expensive. What u get for what u pay is simple math n logic. My fellow PS followers, lets not argue anymore bcuz if they aint get it by now then its hopeless. I have owned a PS1, 2 PS2's(original and slim) and now a PS3...never been sent for repairs. Sony still supports ps2(wheres the original xbox games) and all my friends 360's either collecting dust or out for repairs. Join the dark side and u will see for ur self.
SONY 4LYFE!!!!

[Prince_Of_Chaos]

Sony still supports PS2 because it's still selling and doing better then the PS3. Microsoft has more people on 360 and don't fell the need to support something that won't make as much money. It sounds sad if you have to put faith in your old product. Kind of defeat the purpose of making a new one.

[onebluephish]

A price reduction is only a short term solution to a long existing issue. You drop the price yet Sony can't deliver the products people want to buy which is why they are in this situation to begin with. Releasing a product on the market that is not on the same level as the intended target audience not to mention technical blunders as well as consistantly flat lining software the slapping ANOTHER price reduction won't get them anywhere.

Activision would be better off by focusing its resources on another platform.

Now, if they [Sony] play it smart and release a new console next holiday season with what they've hopefully learned the last 3 years-they only have one direction to go: Up.

[the_iceman]

since day one the high price of the system and 60 $ games have kept me away. I'd really like one though.

once it hits the 199 zone w/ a good selection of 20 $ games is when I'll buy in

[pooyan69]

Sony lost this generation the very day they announced the $600+ price tag for the PS3 at launch.

[Pacman33]

I would laugh so hard if Sony released a crippled console like the 360 arcade for about $149. They should swap the blu-ray for a dvd drive, strip the hard drive, the bluetooth, the Wi-Fi and the web-browser. Could you imagine the back lash? The new hot Sony hate topic for bloggers would be on how they're cheating consumers with the new watered down version. Ahhhh, how I missed the days when "it has no games" was the argument.

P.S. I know that the games would not work without a BD drive. It's kind of funny though, because it sounds like I described the PS2. :)

[TheStairMaster]

except sony sells the PS2 for $50 than your suggested price point =D

[kaizersoza]

At least all you guys have the PS3 or 360 or both... I'm still playing with a PS2!

[roachbrain]

No sweet if you buy another PS2 and tape them together you would be ahead of us with a PS4.

[TheStairMaster]

duct tape FTW!

I have a PS3 & the X-Box 360 and I like both machines for what they do. I will be honest and admit I prefer to play games on my 360 because it seems like my PS3 is ALWAYS updating or installing something.

The PS3 is a good machine but I don't see the value in buying one for $400 in a bad economy. I actually got both of my PS3's for $100 each as a throw in when I bought both of my Sony Bravia flat screen tv's. I can afford Blu-Ray but rarely buy movies on that platform. Outside of built in Wi-Fi I can honestly say I don't see a reason to buy a PS3 over a 360.

Think about it....for $400 you will go home with 0 games and 1 controller. If you buy 1 game, 1 movie, and 1 controller then you are looking at a $500 purchase. That just isn't a great value right now when there are cheaper options that are just as good.

[kewell82]

You can get bundles that have games with an extra controller for $400.

[roachbrain]

Don't even try xbox owners will stick to the price excuse untill death or red ring of death. Anyone with a PS3 allready know they have a great value. See you on the Warhawk feild solder.

[bridgerbot]

As far as straight "value" goes, that a company sells it at a loss (i.e. NEGATIVE markup) means it is a good value. Now weather you want one or not is a different story.

[friscoG]

I agree with those that have stated that pricing is similar. I bought a 360 a few years ago, and a PS3 a few months ago when there was $80 through the dell store. In all honesty, the PS3 is a slight more valuable deal *IF* you want the contents, ie wireless, user replaceable hard drive, web browser, etc. As some have said, if you get the 360 and then add on these options, you end up paying just as much.

[dddouchebag]

How about dropping the price of your videogames? You're seriously going to charge customers $60 to play the same songs from previous GH installments?

Also, if you are profiting $200 million dollars BECAUSE you went multi-platform, I think that disqualifies you from telling those platforms how to run their business.

[azadam24]

The bottom line is that to remain competitive in the console "wars", if you will, Sony will simply have to reduce the price of the PS3. Even setting aside the absolutely tremendous potential loss of Activision as a game producer (which I believe would be a truly crippling blow if they follow through and also discontinue support for the PSP), Sony doesn't have enough console-exclusive games or even games that utilize its vaunted Cell processor enough to distinguish its games markedly from those on the 360. And their online community actually MAKES people WANT to pay the $50 for Xbox Live (an area where Sony will FOREVER be playing catch-up to Microsoft). The blu-ray player built into the PS3 has received much acclaim, but by the holidays there will be sub $100 blu-ray players and my guess is even sub-$500 laptops that INCLUDE blu-ray players and/or burners. My guess is Sony will cave, they can resist change all they want, but companies that can't adapt typically ultimately fail. Get with the program Sony, you have a great machine and lots of people want to have it sitting next to their 360 and Wii in the living room. Off the soap box now, that's just my two cents for today...

[TheStairMaster]

activision's ************ everyone. I'm pretty sure the only people convinced they're serious are M$ enthusiasts and blogging "journalists".

[sapper6]

There is no way Activision will pull their support to the PS3. They would lose so much money from games like Call of Duty not being on that platform. What their CEO said is a bluff, and Activision will not follow through. The fact is the PS3 is a ten year console, just like Sony states. Look at the 360. When it came out Microsoft dropped the Xbox like a hot rock. Sony still makes games for PS2. The PS3 is also a better system, and it is more expensive to produce. These game publishers have gotten lazy, and are producing the same titles with sequels, and charging top price for them. Maybe Activision should be the one who lowers their prices!!!

[sapper6]

I have made my comment about Activision, and have already stated its a bluff. There is no way that Activision wants bad blood with Sony. Look at the last company who messed with Sony, Nintendo. Though they are doing well now, for many years (from PS1-Wii) Nintendo was hurting. This was because Nintendo dropped their project with Sony. They had asked Sony to work on a CD-Rom based system, and later backed out of the deal. Enter PS1--the rest is history.

On the 360 VS PS3 issue:

I own all three systems (Wii, PS3, 360). I only use the Wii when friends are over for the simple part games, like Mario Party. The PS3 is my baby. I use that system as my DVD player, my Blu-Ray player (I have a 47 inch 120 HZ TV), and my gaming. The 360 sadly has become an expensive paperweight. I bought it when it first came out and it has broke on me about 4 times. I originally paid around 140 dollars to fix the first time (past the then 3 month warranty). Microsoft later refunded that money to their credit. Because I was afraid it would break again I bought a $70 two year warranty. They kept telling me that my warranty wouldn't take effect till after their new 3 year red ring warranty (which turned out to be untrue). My warranty is now expired, and my Xbox sits dead with the E74 problem.

I wish I would have waited for the PS3, but that is the price you pay when you're an early adopter of electronics. The garbage box 3fix me is a haphazard piece of equipment that was rushed to be put out. Even after M$ new about the problems they were blundering slow to fix them. Many of the problems still exist today. The PS3 is a much better design, and is just plain built to last.

For those of you who say they are happy with the arcade version, and don't want to play online I say this. You would play online if it was free. Xbox live cost more than my Sam's Club membership. $50/year? Really??? Come on M$, with all that extra money you could have fixed your garbage box, and came out with some better exclusives. I owned the original XBOX, I thought it was a little better than my PS2. But as soon as the 360 came out, they dropped their support of that system. I have no doubt they will so the same when their next piece of garbage comes out. Trust me, you get what you pay for. M$ support also stinks by the way...

Here is my own little price comparison:

XBOX 3FIXME:

60 GB Model = $299
Wireless Adapter = $99
XBOX Live = $50/Year

Cost of ownership One Year = $448
Cost of ownership Five Years Years = $648

PlayStation 3:

80 GB Model = $399
Wireless Adapter = Built In
PlayStation Network = Free/Year

Cost of ownership One Year = $399
Cost of ownership Three Years = $399

No Hardware Failures = Priceless

It doesn't take an accountant to figure this one out guys (I am one by the way).

[roachbrain]

You forgot to key in the cost of batteries for the controller, liquid repair thing for the CDs since the tiniest scratch will cause your games to freeze and skip, and a cooling fan (if you can find one that works). PS3 can not add these cost since it comes with a wireless controller that recharges by the PS3 counsel, the blu-ray disc are pretty scratch resistant and even if it does it takes a lot more than a nick to make it act funny, and no need of a cooling fan since I have yet needed one even after hours of gaming. The quality is there you just have to be willing to pay for it, but you'll defiantly save in the long run by a lot. Well at least i'm talking through my own expiriance with the 360 to PS3 transition.

[JebusChrist]

The CEO is an idiot for trying to pull this stupid stunt.

The PS3 has a large enough fan base RIGHT NOW that stopping support to that console would cost them a lot of money.

Also to the people saying the that the number of units sold between the PS3 and the 360 means the Xbox has has, stop forgetting that the 360 was launched a year early and if you look at time passed vs sales, the ps3 and 360 are almost equally matched with the PS3 pulling away at certain points.

Also stop complaining about the price. You pay $50 a year for voice chat.

[Preime]

So why is this large Sony fanbase not translating into sales of games? There is a 25% difference in ownership, and yet new game releases often show a disparity of sales on 50% or more when compared to the 360.
Taking alleged increased development cost, licensing costs and the online cost, only Activision can say if they are making any money off the PS3 and if it is worth it.
I suspect at the end of the day, this is little more than sabre rattling on behalf of Activision to get Sony to reduce their licensing fees or offer them other financial incentives.

[rrod182]

Who cares. Seriously, this is the same ******* discussion that has been going on for almost 3 years. Who cares.

[corebus120385]

yes the ps3 is overpriced. Well not really. Its just that its in last place and activision's ceo's is saying they should lower the price of the ps3 to better compete and to bring in more software sales of third party titles. When it comes to 3rd party title sales microsoft's 360 is crushing both ps3 and nintendo. Why support a console thats complicated and expensive to develop for when you could be making more money concentrating on the console that is actually selling your games? But i doubt it will work microsoft will just lower 360's price again.

[roachbrain]

My thing is if the developers are so lazzy why not just make games for the Wii. You can see the quality of PS3 hardware on games like Killzone (sorry i know this one is used alot), Infamous, and Uncharted. Those are games that efort was put into to make it look great; not just another recycled sequal to another shooter.

Just look at prototype, that game looks bad even for a last gen counsel. Transformers? X-men: Origins?? That's just 09' check out what they had for last year that wasn't another CoD ex or Guitar Hero copy and paist. Activision wouldn't be missed by me if they drop PS3 support.

Can't wait to see what games like Agent and Last Guardian have instore for us PS3 fans.

[SteveW928]

@ roachbrain -

Great point! If Wii has sold so many more consoles than Xbox, why bother making Xbox titles anymore either? If that failed logic works to justify dropping PS3 development, it should all the more apply to Xbox in comparison to Wii.

[jefferyjay01]

I am surprised and happy to see so many comments about Sony not lowering the price of the PS3. Bottom line, if you can't afford a PS3, too bad for you. You will pay far more for a 360 in the long run. I own a Wii, 360, and PS3, and the PS3 is far superior.

[IOfferTruths]

Just to be clear, these gaming companies make MONSTROUS profits on these games. They sell for $50 or $60 a pop, but it doesn't cost more than $10 or so to make each copy of the game. MONSTROUS profit. That is why these consoles are priced as high as they are: consumers agree to pay that price. They could sell the units for $200 each and still make monstrous profits. But their studies show consumers are willing to pay $150 more than that.

[SteveW928]

Umm.... I think you'd better check your math. For the average PS3 or Xbox title to only cost $10... they would have to sell approx. 1.5M copies just to recoup the development cost, let alone marketing, distribution, profit for retailing them, etc. Many games don't sell that many copies. The popular titles (which do often sell that many or more), also often cost even more to develop.