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