Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PlayStation (Games) Sony The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Activision CEO Warns Sony That the PS3 Needs a Price Cut 149

Posted by Soulskill
from the take-the-hint-sony dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activision CEO Warns Sony That the PS3 Needs a Price Cut

Comments Filter:
  • Sony execs aren't dumb. They aren't going to announce price cuts until they happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect [wikipedia.org]

    • by DrXym (126579) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @04:46AM (#28400195)
      Sony execs aren't dumb. They aren't going to announce price cuts until they happen.

      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.

    • by madsenj37 (612413) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @05:25AM (#28400317)
      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.
    • Sony execs aren't dumb. They aren't going to announce price cuts until they happen.

      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 whatno

      • by KDR_11k (778916)

        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...

      • 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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20, 2009 @03:51AM (#28399989)
    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.
    • 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!

  • by yourassOA (1546173) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @03:52AM (#28399997)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by Sardak (773761)
      I agree. Most of my friends and myself already own PS3s, so the console's price is a non-issue for us. We're just waiting on the games.

      Some of them have given in and purchased Xboxes, but I've been standing my ground in hopes that one day the PS3 will have a library of games comparable to that of the PS2. I'm kind of annoyed that I wasn't able to play the new Star Ocean (seriously, why is it not on a Sony console like most of the others in the series?), but I'll live. I've tried out the other availabl
      • by Kneo24 (688412)
        I use one of those "cinderblocks" as my gamepad for my PC. It works great and it feels comfortable. So I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the whole "cinderblock" argument from anyway.
      • by NeMon'ess (160583) *

        You must enjoy using a controller that doesn't fit the shape of your hands. The 360s comfortably fits my hands. The L2 and R2 triggers don't force my middle fingers to reach as far, and the left analog stick is in a more natural position that requires less reach.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stardude82 (1030976)

      Agreed also true in the sense they could also bundle more games with it. For instance, I got my 40Gb with a $100 gift card to a large international retailer.

      Off Metacritic.com, the same games have higher scores for the 360 and average top 20 games are 2 percent better.

      Generally, me thinks (and this is no secret) the developers just hate Sony and their hardware.

      • Sony's hardware or IBM's PPC?
        • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @05:25AM (#28400311)

          . . . 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!"

          • by hattig (47930) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:31AM (#28400811) Journal

            The majority of the cost of writing a game is in media creation, not programming. Media = textures, videos, 3D objects and animations, maps, structures, music, sound effects, etc.

            The media can be reused across different platforms - typically 360, PS3 and PC. A Wii version might use scaled down versions of the same media.

            On top of that, you usually develop a game on top of a game engine, so if you re-use that engine across titles, the per-platform development cost goes down even further.

            The PS3 has plenty of games, many of then unique to its platform. Its sales rate is the same as the 360 across the world, and if you exclude the USA it's outselling the 360. The 360 does have a year's headstart on its side, hence its 7m extra sales. Most game developers have got the hang of the PS3's hardware to the point where the games are now no worse than the 360, with promises of more improvements to come.

            If anything, this entire article says more about the standard of programmers at Activision.

            However I do think a price drop on the PS3 hardware would benefit everyone. I do suspect that they're creating a slim-line version using 45nm components. This is when the sales will take off (as with the PS2 slim), especially if GT5 launches at the same time. Right now Sony must be making a profit on the hardware, given how much the price of BluRay drives has dropped.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Actually while the source media can be the same, the final media on the disc can and is different. More compressed or in a different format that is more amenable to getting the most out of the consoles hardware.

              We have a lot of *fun* getting the PS3 to perform at the same speed as the 360 on the same real world scenes, mostly due to two factors1) the GPU in the PS3 is not as good as the 360s, 2) The Cell processor is a ~#&$ to get performance out of without a lot of additional work... additional work th

              • by hattig (47930)

                Thanks for your points.

                I imagine that adjusting the media for each console's differences is a lesser task than the creation - possibly to the point of being an automated script.

                It is also true of course that the PS3 is a compromise, and came too early for the technology it represents (especially Cell). Then again the PS2 was quite quirky. If a company keeps the expertise in-house then the games will improve over time.

                ATI really did well with the 360 graphics chip.

                The loss per unit isn't really known. A vast

            • Just because Intel can make 45nm parts doesnt mean IBM suddenly can.....

            • by brkello (642429)
              Um, you didn't answer his question. It doesn't matter what platform you develop on, you are going to have graphical costs. He asked for someone to comment on the difficulty of programming with the Cell processor which could make it have a longer development cycle and more difficult/expensive to find quality programmers or train them up on the Cell.

              You really don't know anything about Cell. You are just talking out your ass like any other fanboy.
          • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The Cell part of development only compounds the underlying issue with developing for the PS3.

            The PS3 uses the GNU toolchain, and whilst Linux zealots will tell you it cured AIDs for them the fact is it's just nowhere near as productive as the Visual Studio toolchain. When you factor in the inherent difficulty of developing with Cell against a relatively unproductive toolchain you see a big difference in overall productivity.

            From what I understand Sony are switching their toolchain to something better, but i

    • by macshit (157376) <[gro.ung] [ta] [selim]> on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:11AM (#28401157) Homepage

      Hmm, not sure I agree.

      My typical procedure is to pick up a console when I come across a game I really want. I think that while the PS3's game lineup is hardly the best history's seen, it has some pretty good stuff. But every time I think "oh maybe I should just get it", the price of the console itself smacks me in the face and I end up thinking I'll just wait.

      There's a vague price threshold below which I buy stuff without worrying too much about the price, and the PS3 is comfortably above that threshold. It isn't a impulse purchase, and I think that in many cases, that's the kiss of death.

      • Actually I could justify the price if there was a PS2 backwards compatibility but the way I see it I probably if I ever buy a console the next two years will end up with a ps2 there is a handful of excellent games I really want to play, while the PS3 lineup so far only has two of them if at all!

    • by feepness (543479)
      There are currently 457 games on this list (PS3 games) [wikipedia.org]

      Another few hundred downloadable. [wikipedia.org]

      Personally I have not been able to keep up for the last year or so. I've not even gotten to Resident Evil 5 yet...
      • There are a lot of TBA vaporware games listed there. Still, a significant number of real and released games remaining...but the number that you quoted is not very meaningful.
      • by sqlrob (173498)

        According to ESRB, There are 811 rated games for the 360, 521 for PS3

        That doesn't say anything about quality or which are multiplatform.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      A 40GB model is still WAY more expensive that the Xbox360 whose baseline model comes in at $199. No, that one doesn't have a hard drive, but it DOES have a memory card which is all you really need for savegames if you truly are wanting it for a gaming machine.

      As much as I dislike Microsoft, for me the 360 is simply the way to go right now. Most "traditional" style games are coming out on both platforms. The 360 is (or was in my case) cheaper. Both systems are pretty capable hardware wise - though I'll s

      • I was comparing base PS3 to a Top of the line Xbox. The advantage to a base ps3 is the HDD can be changed up to 500GB the top of the line Xbox can't do that. $180 for a 120GB hdd compared to $55 for a 320GB hdd in my ps3.
  • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @03:54AM (#28400007)

    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.

    • by Dahamma (304068)

      Exactly. I don't understand why a publisher is babbling (incorrectly) about attach rates. Make a really good game for a console - the console owners will buy it. If there just aren't very many of those customers, sure, that's a valid complaint and a reason not to support the console. But the only one who should be worried about the sales PER CONSOLE is Sony (who makes a licensing fee from every game sold...)

    • by daath93 (1356187)
      Activision's point seems to be that with a low console turnout there will be a smaller volume of people demanding Activision games to those consoles vs more successful consoles, which makes it difficult for the manufacturer to justify the cost to retool the entire game to run on the silly PS3 architecture.
      • 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.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      The PS3 currently has the highest attach rate of all next gen consoles, so that's definitely not it's problem. It absolutely does need to be cheaper though. I think a $299 Slim model would sell shitloads.
      • by Xest (935314) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:35AM (#28401309)

        Unfortunately reality seems to disagree with you.

        http://kotaku.com/5222086/ps3-attach-rate-overtakes-wii-attach-rate [kotaku.com]

        From a year ago:

        http://playstation.joystiq.com/2008/04/25/npd-releases-home-console-attach-rate-ratios-ps3-not-so-hot/ [joystiq.com]

        There has not been any period at all where the PS3 has had a higher attach rate than the 360 and it's only just very recently managed to overtake the Wii.

        The closest I could find to your claims was this:

        http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23186 [gamasutra.com]

        But it really doesn't make any sense, attach rate is number of games purchased per console, not number of units of certain cherry picked titles sold per console. I suppose if you're completely unobjective and a total Sony fanboy you might take away from that in your mind that Sony has a higher attach rate, but if you step back and be objective and look at the first link you'll notice that regardless of what Sony says and how they twist a few figures the cold hard truth is that they do have a lower attach rate even when adjusted for console lifetime on the market. Nintendo could play a similar game to Sony taking games that were really built for the Wii but ported to other consoles anyway and suggest they have a higher attach rate, but still, the reality is that they don't. Effectively what Sony is abusing is the fact they have a much lower selection of titles on their system, so the good titles get a higher ratio bought for their console than for the other consoles, but this makes no sense because attach rates aren't about specific individual titles. It also ignores the fact their system has sold much fewer of the titles they've cherry picked overall too which should be the real measure of per-game success on each platform. If they have sold less of a specific title because they have a smaller install base that doesn't mean anything in terms of how well they're doing, in fact, it only exagerates the problem of having a smaller install base. If you can make up for that smaller install base with greater profits from game sales (i.e. real attach rates) then you may be able to live with that, but the problem is Sony is struggling in terms of both install base AND attach rates. It looks like they're improving things on the attach rates front, but they're certainly nowhere near Microsoft and they're certainly even further from having a big enough lead on attach rates against Microsoft that they can make up the profit differences from a lower install base.

        At the end of the day all a publisher like activision sees is the amount of profit gained per console they publish for, and the fact is, Sony's mangled statistics don't change that one bit, it's simply an attempt at improving PR.

        Really, if you have any sources that show the PS3 really does have a higher attach rate than the other two consoles rather than a bunch of cherry picked mangled stats that actually have nothing to do with attach rate because attach rates are game neutral I'd love to see it, but I've yet to see anything that shows this and certainly nothing from independent and product neutral sources like NPD.

        I don't expect you to change your mind and accept that Sony doesn't have the highest attach rate, because the fact you came out with that unsourced and clearly untrue comment in the first means you're probably not open to the idea that the PS3 isn't doing as well as it should be but it seems silly to leave such an incorrect comment uncorrected. Still, if you can somehow prove your comment then I'll step back and accept I stand corrected but mangled statistics that are effectively meaningless from the marketing department of the company you're referring to don't really count for obvious reasons, it needs to be objective 3rd party stats that really tell us something about profit from games sold per console.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by YesIAmAScript (886271)

          Here's a tip Xest, if you feel personally attacked when someone else says something nice about their favorite console (even incorrectly), you are a fanboy.

          • by Xest (935314)

            The same could be said for someone calling someone else a fanboy based on the arbitrary assumption they took offence, rather than simply that they dislike seeing people who are dishonest about said console without a care which one it is.

            Sometimes it's worth considering your own advice before preaching it to others.

        • I assume the attach rate on the PS3 is not very high, you have about 30% customers who buy the PS3 as Blue Ray player only because face it it still is the inofficial reference player and one of the best there is!
          The rest is gamers but the games are way too expensive compared to other systems!
          The PS3 is the classical example where game companies outpriced themselves due to their greed!
          Probably comes hand in hand with the console being the only one which has not been pried open!

    • "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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Xest (935314)

      To provide some evidence for your claim-

      When the other consoles were released the 360 was arguably the most expensive - it was outright more expensive than the Wii, and when you compared like for like it was more expensive than the PS3.

      Yet it had a much higher attach rate, by far the highest of the three.

      Since then it's dropped to offer the cheapest system out the lot yet still has the highest attach rate (http://kotaku.com/5222086/ps3-attach-rate-overtakes-wii-attach-rate).

      That suggests that you're right,

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20, 2009 @03:59AM (#28400023)

    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.

    • by am 2k (217885) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @04:07AM (#28400063) Homepage

      Uh, if you just want casual games, gaming consoles aren't for you anyways.

      Maybe you're no longer interested in nowadays' consoles because you have changed since the old days?

      • by Derek Loev (1050412) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @04:20AM (#28400103)

        Uh, if you just want casual games, gaming consoles aren't for you anyways.

        This doesn't make sense to me. Gaming consoles *are* for the casual gamer. I always thought PCs were for the hardcore gamers.

        • by am 2k (217885)

          I think you missed a few years of game business. Currently, PC gaming is pretty much dead except for specific genres like RTS and MMORPGs, and nearly all new games are made for the consoles.

          • I think you missed a few years of game business. Currently, PC gaming is pretty much dead except for specific genres like RTS and MMORPGs, and nearly all new games are made for the consoles.

            Well most of the stuff is ported since the PC still is about 1/3rd of the revenue market, the funny thing is thanks to the consoles the hardware upgrade cycle has slowed down so much that pc gaming nowadays is cheaper than the average console if you count in the games as well which on the average are 30% cheaper!

        • by sznupi (719324) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @05:42AM (#28400401) Homepage

          That's a misconception originally promoted by some to feel more elitist, I guess, and nowadays mostly to point fingers at consoles and yell "they dumb down our games!"

          There are also "hardcore" (as you put it...whatever that means) games for consoles. And there was more of them in the past. As is the case for the PC.

          Simply an effect of marginalizing early and "mid" adopters, now that both types of platforms have became much more mainstream.

          Also, thank MS for bringing them so close together that it's "obvious" for publishers to aim games for both. Which means: the need to be compromise on both platforms, cutting out things that work great on one, but are not really doable on the other. "Jack of all trades..." and all that...

          • 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 multipla

        • Still, I think that Solitaire is probably the most played game on the PC.

    • Really, it's harder to enjoy the older game systems because they are all SD.

      Distant objects that might be important to game play that were splotches in the past have a defined shape. Except for the Wii. Still SD.

      • by sqlrob (173498)

        As someone who switches between generations of hardware constantly, I call shenanigans.

        A good game is a good game.

  • by mysidia (191772) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @04:28AM (#28400137)
    • Windows OS, Office, MSSQL, etc, the windows SW
    • iPhone
    • Acrobat, Flash, Photoshawp
    • Inkjet printer cartridges

    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.

  • by Sarusa (104047) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @04:32AM (#28400149)

    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.

  • by DrXym (126579) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @04:54AM (#28400235)
    Activision like most huge companies employes teams to write middleware libraries and tools which probably means a substantial portion of title specific code is platform neutral. Games hit the middleware, not the hardware except in some timing critical places. On top of that, the PS3 would share virtually 100% of the graphical and audio assets with its PC and 360 counterparts. The upshot is developing for 360/PC/PS3 is not vastly more expensive than developing for 360/PC. Compare to the Wii where virtually all of the game code and assets would be different.

    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.

  • by SharpFang (651121) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @05:23AM (#28400307) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by sznupi (719324)

      Uhmmm...since you live _here_ you surely must know that it is, in large part, thanks to local distributors, not Nintendo/Apple/etc. (companies which, in reality, don't have a presence here; they rely on some 3rd party that takes silly cut for itself)

      • by SharpFang (651121)

        Somehow Microsoft and Sony get around that though - it's not like Nintendo is unfairly disadvantaged comparing to others - they all have to deal with the same market conditions, but Nintendo deals with them extremely poorly.

        • by sznupi (719324)

          Somehow Nintendo, in this generation of consoles, is the only one doing things in a profitable way.

          That could also mean it doesn't need small bragging rights it would get from also trying to dominate totally immature markets.

          And don't pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, as an owner of on of very few non-chipmodded PS1s here. X360 dominates PL market because it easy to pirate.

      • Actually it is Nintendo of Europe who says how much an item has to cost!
        Same goes for Sony Europe etc... and the 1:1 Dollar Euro price hiking is quite common, this gives companies an additional 10-20% revenue (if you count out the VAT which is quite high in Europe)

        • by sznupi (719324)

          Sony has a direct presence in Poland - Sony Poland. They deal with a lot of consumer products, they might just as well take PS3 on the ride.

          Microsoft has a direct presence in Poland - Microsoft Poland. They deal with a lot of consumer products, they might just as well take X360 on the ride.

          Nintendo presence in Poland relies on some local company name of which I even don't remember. It's not worth it to start direct operations in so immature market.

          • Forget about it, Sony of Europe wont allow this, this is the disadvantage of the EU price fights within european countries are not really possible anymore. Imagine what would happen if you suddenly would get the PS3 for half the price in Poland than in Germany...
            Poland would be overrun by germans buying PS3s!

            • by sznupi (719324)

              Well, and it's actually the other way around - if I want to buy any consumer electronics device it's substantially cheaper to do it in Germany (though I live near the border / Berlin is the closest really big city (and the roads take you there 2x faster; heck, if I travel to southern Poland it's better to do it through Germany))

            • by Gizzmonic (412910)

              Poland would be overrun by germans buying PS3s! ...New, for Sony Playstation 3...Blitzkrieg!

    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      Bastards really need to pull heads out of their asses and cut the crap with "double the price for Europe" politics.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      If the units are moving off the shelves, then they don't "need" to do anything. Here's the pictorial explanation [penny-arcade.com].

      • by sznupi (719324)

        Yeah, funny thing about high prices (among other things of course...) was that thanks to them you didn't have a problem of getting a Wii from day one (even though, in words of PL company that distributes them, the supply was "catastrophic"...but why would Nintendo send large batch into such immature market?)

    • This is more expensive than in the US, but not as much as you think.

      Polish VAT is 22%, so 384USD after VAT is removed would be 384 * 0.78 = 299.

      In the US, the price is actually about 249 for the console alone. (mail order prices)

      Also after doing a search (see http://www.nokaut.pl/konsole/konsola-nintendo-wii.html [nokaut.pl]), the typical price seems to about 1080, i.e. 1080 * 0.307579 = 332 and 332 *0.78 = 259

      So there is really not much difference.

      Note, in the US, we pay sales tax on top of the purchase pric

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • by kewlblue (1256588)
      While I agree that it was stupid that Sony removed the backwards compatibility from the PS3 I don't ever remember it ever being such a huge problem that the SNES or pretty much any other system in the history of console gaming was not backwards compatible. Yes it is a nice feature but it is just that, a feature. Sony's biggest problem is still lack of a game library. I considered buying one when MGS4 came out but the price stopped me and now that Gran Turismo 5, a slim design and maybe even a price drop
  • 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.
  • 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?

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...