Slashdot Mirror
Activision CEO Warns Sony That the PS3 Needs a Price Cut
Bobby Kotick, President and CEO of Activision, one of the largest game companies in the world, has come out with a none-too-subtle warning to Sony that they need to seriously consider a price drop on the Playstation 3. Rumors have been circulating for months that such a drop was forthcoming, but Sony has staunchly denied that they had any plans to drop prices, Kotick said, "The PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. ... They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow. If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony." While it's unlikely that Activision would follow through with such a threat, it definitely adds to the pressure Sony is feeling to lower the PS3's price. Sony issued a brief response which said nothing of consequence.
Sony execs aren't dumb. They aren't going to announce price cuts until they happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
Are you kidding? Sony has a long sordid history of leaking stuff long before it happens.
This may have more to do with their recent releases being outsold by first party titles on the platform. Infamous outselling Prototype, Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 outselling World at War. Add to that Rock Band outselling Guitar Hero and bar Modern Warfare Activision are struggling for a top selling IP.
But don't worry, MS fanboys are going to speculate the shit out of a price cut until no one wants to buy a PS3 due to the upcoming "price cut".
Not being overpriced. The 40GB models are comparable in price to an Xbox and it is a simple matter to change the HDD . Mine is 320GB.
High console price doesn't lead to a low attach rate. It leads to many other problems, but it doesn't lead to a low attach rate.
I think the problem in question is that the high price keeps the console sales down which means there are fewer owners for Activision to sell copies of their games to.
Attach rate is the number of games sold per console sold, not total number of games sold for a particular platform.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
As someone who's been around since the Atari 2600/Intellivision/ColecoVision days, this is the first generation of consoles that I've skipped buying. And as a prior owner of a 3DO, that says a lot. Why? Two reasons.
1) This generation of consoles feels like too small of an improvement over the last to justify the purchase.
2) With the enjoyment of seeing a generational leap in graphics being non-existent, I feel like, for the first time, I can turn to any one of the billion casual gameplay sites out there for a quick 10-minute to an hour gaming fix at no cost.
Sure, I still play an Oblivion, a Half-Life, or a Fallout once in a while, but for the most part I like getting a quick fix and moving on to something new the next day, week, or month. Casual gameplay sites (for now, anyway) let me do this extremely cheaply.
I'd probably look into getting one of this generation's consoles for $100. Money isn't the issue, the enjoyment:money ratio is.
Yeah, but leaking a price cut does nothing for you, unless you were looking to lose a lot of money.
MS Fanboys == people who don't pay $400 to play final fantasy, or to watch blu-rays at 175 watts (vs around 30 watts for a stand-alone player. Some jerkoff always has to mention how they can watch movies on them too. Usually the same jerkoffs who slap you in the face about global warming).
Those fanboys?
Come to think of it, the iPhone is almost as expensive as the PS3 (if not more so).
Pass or fail is more than about price.
Why does everyone just say 'Activision'? Uneasy about dragging your beloved WoW into this? It's Activision Blizzard, and that 'Blizzard' along with Call of Duty and Guitar Hero are why Kotick can afford to be the huge raging prick he is.
He's got a long history of being a total @#$hole to squeeze profits, and it's worked. He's the reason you're going to be paying for Starcraft II three times instead of one, no matter what lame excuses they feed you. He's got no compunctions about selling you multi-hundred dollar overpriced plastic controller sets to go with his games while he complains about PS3 prices. His unbridled douchebaggery works quite well, at least in the short run, and it might work in the long run because Blizzard can get away with anything.
Now of course he knows that Activision Blizzard paid Sony $500 million dollars last year in per-game royalties and other crap, and I'm sure he's looking to shave some of that. That's what this is really about. And Sony is vulnerable - just the suggestion that a major publisher could drop the PS3, even if they wouldn't, is hugely damaging when they're in third place in the largest markets. I'm sure fanbois will sneer that they don't need Activision, but someone's sure buying their stuff on PS3.
I'm not giving them any money because of the Brutal Legend fiasco (part of Kotick's deliberate cockmongering), but I realize that's sort of quixotic. In general you people (forgive my broad brush) will continue to bend over and spread wide for Call of Duty and WoW and Starcraft and Diablo III.
Some jerkoff always has to mention how they can watch movies on them too. Usually the same jerkoffs who slap you in the face about global warming
I have carbon-neutral hydroelectric power, you insensitive clod!
Especially with a slim model on the way. Anyway its fairly likely what Sony will do since they've done it before. When the new model appears they'll dump the price on the old model, bundle the new model with some goodies and sell at a premium. Then when the old are cleared out, unbundle the new model and continue selling at the new lower price.
Therefore I don't accept the motivations for this statement. More likely Sony and Activision are in a pissing match over something like certification fees, PSN fees, technical requirements, 3rd party accessories or similar and this is Activision making their power play. Any way, a price cut is bound to happen sooner than later. Everyone knows its needed, including Sony, especially if the Slim is inbound as it is.
It's not so simple. While being concerned about power inefficiency is fine and dandy, home electronics really aren't as big of an issue in terms of inefficient "carbon" use as you'd think. If it becomes a question of whether to buy a separate Blu-Ray player or put the money towards a more efficiant car, you are better off with the car. Why? Check the engine power ratings. A 200kW engine (roughy 267HP) makes 175W look like a pittance. Your car takes a lot more power than your home electronics, and often produces that power in a less efficient manner than electric power plants do.
What happens to that power if you don't use it?
My guess would be that it is sold to another country which then does not have to produce this power using fossile fuels.
So yes, unless your power grid is completely separated from the world (Iceland?), your power consumption will also affect the world's CO2-outlet.
(The above does not mean that I necessarily believe that global warming is caused by CO2.)
Nintendo does. In the eastern european countries.
I've been to an electronics store recently, and just out of curiosity, checked the prices. Back when Wii was announced at $200, I had hoped to buy one. Now I can say FUCK YOU NINTENDO.
PS3: 1450PLN = 445USD
XBOX360: 850PLN = 260USD
WII: 1250PLN = 384USD
That's about half of an average salary too. Bastards really need to pull heads out of their asses and cut the crap with "double the price for Europe" politics.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
. . . is probably a royal pain in the ass. Any /. Cell developers care to comment?
Kotick said, "It's expensive to develop for the console." Read that as time, people and money, when compared to other platforms.
I would think that Sony would be bending over backwards to support developers.
OS/2 was a better OS than Windows, but there were not enough applications for it, so folks flocked to Windows.
I'm curious to hear how the Cell development environment is: "Great, Challenging, or Run Away!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The wikipedia article you point to has Sony benefiting from the reverse-Osbourne effect. When they announced the end of PS2 hardware emulation in the PS3, sales of the 60 GB PS3 with PS2 Hardware soared.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
Yes. As I said, Sony execs aren't dumb. They leak info that helps them.
Osbourne effect:
company: Next generation models are going to be faster, cheaper, and better!
consumers: We should definitely wait for the next one.
Reverse Osbourne effect:
company: Next generation models are going to slower and less featureful!
consumers: Oh shit! We better get while the getting's good.
Lowering the price of the PS3? Hmmm... It is an impressive spec, but I don't think I shall buy one because FUCK SONY!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Kotick's basically the biggest troll in the industry.
(The above does not mean that I necessarily believe that global warming is caused by CO2.)
Oh, I didn't realize it was a matter of beliefs...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Bzzt. Try again.
Nobody outside /. cares about the fact that Sony is part of the MPAA and RIAA.
Sales are down because just about everyone that's willing to buy one at $399 has already done so. Sony is just playing chicken with the fence-sitters, because they know they can get more money if they wait it out.
Personally I plan to buy one the minute it goes under $350, and I don't care how long it takes. Longer just means more good+cheap games in the greatest hits collection.
Now you know better.
"Attach rate" should sound quite scornful to the customers. It is remarkable that these guys even have a technical term for the rate with which vendor lock-in progresses.
My question is: What kind of a jackass buys an FPS game for a playstation? It's next to impossible to aim with the slapped on joysticks they've used since ps1 days, whereas the Xbox controller from day one had the two sticks offset from each other for a MUCH better handling of the controls as well as being infinitely more ergonomic than the ps controller.
Every one knows it is coming and a slimmer model too.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Well, over the last decade, what has the CO2 level been doing? What has the global temperature done?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Forget price cuts. Without backwards compatibility, I and most PS fans have zero reason to buy a PS3. I can say, their blatant disregard for their established customer base destroys all confidence that they can satisfy me as a customer.
Think about it.
Oh well Activision wanted to have every game being a multi million dollar franchise which should sell a butload of copies every year, I guess they failed their way!
Activision is just playing the game to publicly seek concessions from Sony. With 25M PS3s and 50M PSPs they would be stupid to ignore that market and they know it.
While I think a price cut is needed as well, if you read the article, what Activision is really upset by is the $500M in royalties they paid.
Anyone who wants to play Resistance 2 or Killzone 2?
I've been playing FPS on both consoles and PCs for a long time and while I'll play the games that have what I want, the mouse/keyboard is miles above either.
Saying one stick is better than another for an FPS is like bragging your bigwheel is faster than a tricycle.
Really, the wattage of the device as a BluRay player is all you've got left now that the games are out for the PS3 and there is a sustainable userbase?
I would guess it'll happen in fall. Sales for consoles in general skyrocket in the months before Christmas, so they'll most want to boost sales then.
My mouse and keyboard want to have a talk with you.
Not just for FPS, the analog sticks on the playstation style controller suck compared to the Xbox layout in every single way. I prefer the xbox controller to keyboard + mouse for any kind of game myself.
Increased, both of them.
Now, over the last decade, what has the number of doping tests in cykling done?
Right, they have increased. This proves that both global warming AND CO2 level is caused by doping tests.
Correlation is not causation.
I am sure even your lazy ass can research on google? I got it from Tomshardware.com somewhere. Find it.
seems to me you are the fanboy.
No, again, there is the price. I can afford it. Its just not worth it when there are equal devices out there that do a better job, are more efficient when it comes to power consumption, and has the added bonus of having more titles and online features. Playing netflix watch instantly on a 360 is a huge feature. Frankly the one or two titles that i would want to play dont justify the addition of a 3rd console beyond the wii and the 360.
Some people are just so anti-microsoft that they cant see past their bias. the PS3 is seriously overpriced, sure its more expensive to make but obviously people dont think the features are worth it or it would sell better. Dont blame the masses because they wont support the silly overpriced black box of your dreams.
maybe sony should lobby congress to spread the wealth of the playstation and force rich people to buy them for poor people. This seems to be what american economy is based on now.
In your opinion. I personally can't stand the 360 controller, never have. Have an adaptor to use a Dualshock 2 on my 360.
Ah, I see; well, I shouldn't be surprised that believers tend to ignore parts of reality they don't like...
One that hath name thou can not otter
I have not expressed any personal beliefs on a causation between CO2 and global warming in this thread.
I have merely pointed out that you can't use correlation as a proof of causation. I would have thought that everybody on /. knew that.
And comment I made wasn't directed at you per se. Just an observation about thought processes of believers.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Seriously overpriced? No. Not for what you get. Somewhat overpriced? At $399 yes. At $349 it may or may not be. At $299 it would be a steal.
Yes, you pay a little bit more for quality hardware that doesn't break and things like integrated WiFi. TCO isn't a whole lot different between the two machines.
It's amusing to see people still making up reasons to hate the other guys.
Really? Which young children? Who were their parents, friends of yours? Or, did you over hear this in a playground? Were their parents perhaps rabid anti-copyright people who hate the **AA and all their members? Or, are they your children?
Your anecdote is too vague to be of any value. In fact, here is a refutation of your anecdote: my 18yo nephew saved up his money to buy a PS3.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
It is more style. Consoles lend themselves to certain styles of games, PCs to others. As an example for consoles would be games that are multiplayer on a single screen. While PCs are technically capable of this, it just isn't so useful. Most PCs have a smaller display and only one set of controls. Thus it doesn't make as much sense to make games that multiple people play on one unit. That isn't so say you can't find such games, they are just much rarer. Consoles, on the other hand, are designed for multiplayer on a single system. They've got multiple input ports, and they are generally hooked up to a large display that multiple people watch (a TV). So if your game lends itself to this kind of interface, it makes sense to have.
On the flip side would be strategy games. Consoles don't do so well for those for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that a mouse and keyboard are a far superior interface. It's just much harder to control a game like Civ 4 or C&C 3 with a controller. There's also the fact that many strategy games need a lot of data loaded at one time, more than can fit in the memory of a console. No problem on a PC, they usually have much large memories and faster storage media to boot. So you see less of those types of games for the console and when you do, they are often cut down ports like Civilization Revolutions.
Now none of that applies to how hardcore a game is. You can find console games that are extremely hardcore, very difficult to play. You can also find PC games that are designed to have zero barrier for entry and be played in small increments (Peggle anyone?).
So if money is not an issue, the PC/console choice is often one of what sort of games and play style you like best. I personally am a PC gamer because strategy games, FPSes, MMOs and such are things I like a lot and they are firmly in the PC's realm at this point.
Another issue might be money though. While PC games are usually a little cheaper than their console counterparts, the hardware itself can be much more expensive. This isn't such a big deal if you already own a good PC for other things, but it is still a consideration. Also consoles upgrade on a generational cycle, about every 4-5 years. If you want to keep up on PC games, you need to upgrade your graphics more often, probably once every 18 months or so. While these days PC gaming may not be a lot more expensive, I'd still submit it is more expensive than console gaming.
Now that can be a non-issue if you like having a high end computer anyhow. Personally, I'd have a pretty high end PC no matter what since I do a lot with it, so I don't spend a whole lot more on game hardware. Pretty much only the graphics card is above and beyond what I'd have for normal use.
Regardless, I think that you are completely correct that there isn't a "hardcore" and "non-hardcore" divide. You get the platform based on what you like to play, not if you are "hardcore" or not.
The bluray in the PS3 is the cause of the high price. If they just put in a regular dvd drive that plays Sony PS2, PS3 and regular dvd movies and games, then the price can be lowered. Who is going to watch Bluray, when a disc costs $20-30 compared to a regular dvd costs like less than $10 at walmart. If they get rid of that bluray and the price gets lowered, then people would buy the console and Sony will be back in business.
These threats to leave are pretty much crap. You may make less millions on PS3 than the other consoles, but you still make millions - so are you really going to walk away from that, or just pretend to and hope that Sony caves quickly?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The problem is, Sony is in a tough spot.
Firstly, the PS3 is among the best future-proof Blu-Ray player out there. Since release, it got upgraded from Profile 1.0 to 1.1 to 2.0 (BD-Live). And now Blu-Ray is getting managed copy sometime in 2010, it looks like the PS3 will be one of the few Blu-Ray players that will get it as an upgrade. (Managed copy lets you rip a Blu-Ray officially to a media player, DRM encrusted and whatnot, but there it is). It started as the first cheap Blu-Ray player, then it now it represents the ceiling price for a consumer level Blu-Ray player.
Secondly, the PS3 s a gaming system, one of the more expensive ones. It's feeling pressure to cut prices to better compete with the Xbos360 and Wii.
The problem is, Sony needs to decide if they want to concentrate on the Blu-Ray side of things, or the gaming side. Because a good positive price cut (say, $100) means that it puts a bunch of Blu-Ray players into the "why bother" price categtory (practically all Profile 2.0 players are $250+...), and I'm sure Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, etc., will be really happy to have to be forced to cut prices in order to sell product. This could seriously impact Blu-Ray sales if people start to believe it's not only "just a Sony format", but a "Sony PS3 format" as people think you must have a PS3 to play them (as they're the only player left on the market).
So Sony needs to keep the price high to keep other manufacturers making Blu-Ray players, but they need to reduce prices to compete with the other game consoles.
Blu-Ray vs. Gaming - what does Sony want to promote more?
Maybe what Sony should do is release a "slim PS3" for $200 that only plays games, no movies. Its not like there aren't enough PS3 models and features that differ between them...
360 is slightly ahead of PS3 worldwide on console sales, but the different is (IIRC), less than 10%. It's very difficult to say that if there are enough 360s in the world to justify porting to it, that there aren't enough PS3s to justify porting to it also.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
That "future proof" BRD players are so expensive is probably one of the major hurdles for the format too. Not only are the damn things expensive but you've got to be careful or your "top of the line" movie player will end up obsolete in a year or two...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Infamous outselling Prototype? Those haven't been out for more than a week or two, how can we even conclude which sold better? I don't think there was even an NPD release since those games hit the market.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes, the DualShock or what they call it these days is shit for aiming but I have no idea why your suggested solution is the 360 gamepad. Both are shit for aiming because aiming with a stick is slow and a game not built with that in mind controls like arse. The PC, DS and Wii have much better aiming controls. Some games are built with the slow stick aim in mind and they work, while pointer aim would improve them too they aren't problematic, others demand precision headshots with a stick in split seconds and those can fuck right off.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Who buys a failing MMO? Darkfall took 7 years to develop -- all to get what, 10,000 subscribers?
Now even the anti-social basement dwellers you bought the damn game are fleeing, and the ones that aren't are being actively insulted by the developers.
WoW killer? The only thing Darkfall is killing is itself.
Costs twice as much for less realized power than the 360. Fuck sony and their shit console.
Because Microsoft says they are? PS2 + ps3 combined still outsells the 360, month over month in the US. The Ps3 alone doesn't, but they still sell the Ps2 and there are still games coming out for the Ps2.
Across the globe, Sony isn't doing bad at all. Sure, I think they really would have liked to be outselling the 360 with the PS3 alone at this moment, but alas, it didn't happen. Big deal, they keep on selling the ps2 and look, it still works. Not everyone looks at the US as the center of the world: the rest of the world also counts, hell, in south america for example, all next-gen consoles are simply too expensive for the majority of the people.
Sony makes money for activision, so why should activision drop sony? It makes them money. So dropping the platform would LOSE them money, so they won't do that. Sony also knows that and I'm pretty sure they don't even pay attention to this nonsense.
The problem is more, like your comment, that a certain group of people think sony is in a tough spot and really on the brim to keel over and keep on repeating that whenever they can. That's the real problem for sony at the moment. Not activision's CEO whining about some licenses he has to pay for (which prices he knew up front).
Though Sony has the solution for this in-house: their own large group of 1st and 2nd party studios. The games they're creating and will create in the coming 2 years are going to make Sony enough money and will sell enough consoles that people who keep on repeating that they're in a tough spot and ready to keel over are not believed anymore.
In that light, MS has bigger problems. But that's an umpopular statement in gaming world with the large group of very vocal 360 followers online. ;)
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
The internet is providing plenty of discount outlets and venues where you can buy gadgets and geegaws for well under the recommended retail price. Why pester the big companies to put the $$$ down? Look at websites like http://www.dubli.com/ - they're selling brand new products at fractions of the prices, simply by putting a simple spin on the auction model. Those who are serious about sourcing cheap, up-to-date gadgets can find them easily and buy them. Meanwhile, Sony can shift their units to those who just don't care - there's always somebody who wants it all NOW and doesn't care about the price of the damn thing. And that, my friends, is the beauty of capitalism. Activision? They should stop blaming Sony's reasonable model and focus instead on producing quality games that work cross-platform.
Twice as much until you pay $200 for a 40 GB HDD and a simple WLAN dongle that gets in the way of USB ports. And the graphics are actually better than the 360, unless the developer does a sloppy port job. InFamous and Metal Gear Solid are good examples.
Yeah, making the Blu-Ray spec a moving target was a horrible idea. Although to be fair, you can still play new BluRays just fine in old players, they just don't have the stupid quizzes or Picture-in-picture commentary...but who really gives a damn about that stuff anyway? It's all about the better picture and sound for me.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)