Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Zonk on from the so-say-we-all dept.

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."

15 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. so another year of awesome wii sales then? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:so another year of awesome wii sales then? by DeepZenPill · · Score: 4, Informative

      People need to stop using hardware sales as the sole metric for determining success. Nintendo's business plan is fundamentally different than that of MS and Sony because they're actually turning a profit on each console sold. The other two rely on game sales for profits, which seems to be working at the moment for the 360, perhaps slowly followed by the PS3.

      Take a look at recent sales numbers: http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php

      Scroll down to where software sales by system are compared, then subtract out the number of Wii Sports and Wii Play sales from the Wii total to find out the non-bundled sales number. You would end up with software sales as follows (of this generation):

      1. 2,369,203 - Xbox360
      2. 1,944,527 - Wii
      3: 943,709 - PS3

      Nintendo's really moving their systems, but with the exception of Super Mario Galaxy and the two bundled games, has a relative dearth of top 10 titles for the Wii. Xbox360 in terms of hardware sales, while trailing the Wii, and depending on the week selling on par with the PS3, is doing quite strongly in software sales. More expensive system, more expensive games, and still sells a lot.

      So if you're MS, why cut prices just because the Wii is cheaper? They're going to keep on chugging along until their costs come down enough that the increase in game sales from a price cut outweighs the foregone income on hardware sales.

      Nintendo isn't dominating the market but expanding the market, which is exactly what they set out to do. In succeeding at this goal they've shown that there is room for more than one console and discussion of a 'winner' is generally unproductive.

    2. Re:so another year of awesome wii sales then? by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wii Play isn't a bundled game. In addition, you aren't taking into account how much longer the developers have had to work with the xbox 360, which allows for more games like Forza and Mass Effect, the games that take a while to make. Also, there are about 33% more xbox 360s that have been sold. Overall, the Wii is still doing as well or better than the xbox in software sales, which means that overall they're doing much better.

    3. Re:so another year of awesome wii sales then? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget that Wii Sports has substantial sales in Japan and is sold separately from the Wii there.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  2. would buy then by Kranfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
    1. Re:would buy then by flitty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    2. Re:would buy then by slyn · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't see why people think that the PS3 is expensive. Think of how much you would pay for each feature of the system separately.

      PS3:
      - Blu Ray player: $250++ (on the low end)
      - Games: $100++ (PS2 is like $100ish, and the ps3 has much much much better graphics + potential awesomeness due to blu ray capacity)
      - Internet Gameplay: $50 (Its 50 a year for XBL, for the PS3 its "free" (in the cost of the games and system))

      Congrats, now your at $400. Now think of all the other things you can do with it.

      - Upscale DVD's
      - Play PS1 + PS2 games upscaled (if you have the right one =/)
      - Browse the web (and thus "mod" games.
      - "Hack the matrix"
      - Home (the "Second Life"-like game/thing)
      - and More! (firmware updates)

      And yes, it even runs Linux!

      Seriously though, for all the things you get, I think the PS3 is by far the best value per dollar of the three next gen consoles.

    3. Re:would buy then by theantipop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:would buy then by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I own a PS3. I use it for playing games. It cost 600 bucks.

      It doesn't matter that the PS3 also does all this other crap, it's still 600 bucks for a console used for playing games.

  3. Ill-fated? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Granted, the Nintendo GameCube wasn't the most popular console last time around. But it sold reasonably well and made Nintendo a tidy profit. I'd hardly call it "ill-fated."

    1. Re:Ill-fated? by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Ill-fated? by nuzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sony has been making a per-unit profit on the PS2 for years. It's going to take them a while to get the same on the PS3, but it'll likely happen too. The DVD format, BTW, was also a big cost for Sony when the PS2 came out, but it worked out well for them. Sony is arrogant, but not entirely stupid.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  4. That's just silly by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    You'd think that with what the CEO of Activision makes he could afford more than $200 for a PS3.

  5. Wishful thinking. by Boogaroo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lemme see...Head of company only responsible for making profits off software expects hardware manufacturers(MS/Sony) to take even larger losses on their hardware just to make the software companies happy. Yeah, that'll happen any day now.

    There's a point where the loss might be a justifiable risk and MS/Sony bean counters have already worked that dollar figure out. Activision's, or any other software vendor's most sincere wish for a price cut isn't going to make a bit of difference when the managers at Microsoft or Sony have meetings to determine when to make that choice. Trying to put pressure on the console makers by making this a press release just makes Activision look dumb.

  6. Something seems out of wack by jonesy16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.