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."

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: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.

Re:Ill-fated?

[DarkRhystar]

I find it amazing that Sony is still around actually. Nintendo always makes money on their console and they're the only one of the three to consistently turn large profits from the gaming industry. By comparison, its two competitors spend their time either sinking into the red and losing money or going back and forth between making and losing money.

If anyone was to survive in this industry, it would be Nintendo because they've proven time and again that they can profit from anything (even Gamecube-esqe sales). At this point, it's a wonder that Sony's stakeholders aren't raising more complaints about Sony's business model of selling their console for a heavy loss. If the PS3 fails any harder than it already has been so far, the future of a PS4 looks mighty grim. Sadly, most of this is due to shoehorning their BluRay format into the console which forced the price to skyrocket even to the point where they would sacrifice functionality of the unit to keep the costs down.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is finally starting to post gains with their gaming division which is practically unheard of. If they could overhaul the 360 to get rid of the costs and negative PR added by continuously having to deal with RRoDs, it's likely that the 360 would stay in the black.

All in all, Nintendo will continue on its merry way making Mario and Zelda games until the end of time. Microsoft will continue attempting to take over your home media center and continue trying to kick Sony in the balls at every opportunity. Sony will continue pushing their BluRay player even as it destroys their games division.

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:would buy then

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree it is an amazing machine, but I'm looking for a console on which to play games. I don't have an HDTV (and won't be buying one soon) I have a kickass PC for browsing the web and actually modding games, and firmware updates is not an advantage. I don't give a shit about Home, and I don't care about running linux on my console. I care about playing fun games at a reasonable cost. The PS3 doesn't offer much of either. Right now the PS3 has two games that I could see myself playing, maybe. Both of them are from Insomniac, and a) I think FPS on a console is silly, b) never played much of the other ratchet games. So I'm really in no rush to drop 600$ for only 2 games that might be fun. Instead I bought a Wii @ 250 and got games I -know- will be fun, Mario Galaxy, Battalion Wars ii. The latter game was free (special sale) so it cost me 300$ for 3 games and a console. I'd have to pay double that just for the console if I was to buy a PS3. I plan on buying Secret Rings, Twilight Princess, and more as time goes on. It's an amazing machine, but it really isn't much of a gaming console. And it probably won't be for a while. When the only 2 games on your console that matter come from the same company you've got a big problem. (not to bash Insomniac, they're awesome)

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.