Activision CEO Hoping For $200 PS3, 360 By '09

Gamespot reports on comments made by Activision CEO Bobby Kotick at this week's Reuters Media Summit in NYC; the publishing veteran feels strongly that deep price cuts are needed in the next two years to ensure that this generation of consoles reaches a truly mass market audience. For comparison: "The original Xbox dropped to the sub-$200 range six months after debuting at $299 in November 2001. The PlayStation 2, which also retailed for $299 when it launched in 2000, fell below $200 in May 2002, and subsequently has sold more than 120 million units as of its seventh anniversary in October. Nintendo's ill-fated last-generation console, the GameCube, was originally listed at $199 when it first went on sale in November 2001, though that price was cut to $150 by May 2002."

Comments

so another year of awesome wii sales then?

[192939495969798999]

It's weird to have someone announce that some consoles will not undercut the competition for an additional year, especially with news that the Wii still sells so well that it's barely in stores long enough to collect dust.

would buy then

[Kranfer]

I saw a similar story in the firehose to this one... As I said there, I would purchase a PS3 if the price was right. $200 is about that price, if this happens, sign me up for one.

Re:would buy then

[flitty]

Honestly, this isn't meant as flamebait, but even at $200 right now, i'd still hold off until some of those "must have" titles start showing up. I bought a 360 because the critical mass of good games hit, and I'm very happy with the games i've played, very much worth the purchase. I just don't see the critical mass of games that are intriguing to me (important point there) that the 360 has.

Perhaps in a year (like the article says) $200 might be a good price if the titles that are scheduled to come out are as good as sony keeps saying they are going to be.

Re:would buy then

[theantipop]

The problem is it adds no value to what I really would want it for: playing games. Personally, I couldn't give a damn about high-def movies, or browsing the web or playing games over the internet. There aren't any PS3's left with full back-compatability and of the games exclusive to the console, nothing even remotely interests me.

I'd buy a 360 for their exclusives if it just came with a damn integrated wifi adapter. The 360 starts to look pretty weak when you take $350 and throw in another $100. IMO, that's s HUGE thing both the Wii and PS3 have over it when comparing costs. I don't know how Microsoft deems it sane to charge 25-40% the cost of a competing console for a key feature their competitors throw in every piece of hardware they sell.

Re:Ill-fated?

[CastrTroy]

Nintendo doesn't have any option but to make money on their console division, because that's the entire company. I find is amazing that Nintendo is even in the game at all anymore. When the other companies don't even have to make a profit, it becomes very hard to compete against them. They have had consoles with not-so-high sales numbers the previous 2 generations (before the Wii), but the fact that they made a profit through all that shows that they must be doing something right.

Something seems out of wack

[jonesy16]

So the CEO of a game company that sells . . . oh let's start with Rock Band, for about $170 to run on a game console that he wants to cost $200. I'm not sure if this is a sign of good things (e.g., hardware costs coming down so you're only spending money on content), or content prices going up to compete with hardware costs. I mean, remember the day when your computer costs $2k and games were $30 to $40? Is that easier or harder to stomach when hardware costs are equivalent to only 3 or 4 games? I, for one, was a little outraged to find that Guitar Hero III for the Wii was $90. For what? Well, music licensing I guess, but still, $90 for a game.