Neoseeker : News : Activision might reduce focus on PS3 if no price cut comes

Activision might reduce focus on PS3 if no price cut comes
Kevin Spiess - Friday, June 19th, 2009 | 10:09AM (PT) 0 Like Favourites (0)


Activision CEO says, "They have to cut the price..."

Long time Activision CEO Bobby Kotick had some very interesting things to say to UK based Times Online this week.

The CEO spoke very plainly and directly on his thoughts about dwindling hopes for the PS3 to compete with the Xbox 360. In effect, he says that unless something different happens, and happens soon, Activision will not find it as profitable to develop titles for the PS3.

“I'm getting concerned about Sony; 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. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation,” Kotick said. 

Is the PS3 set to slowly fade into the sunset? Playstation 3 console sales have been continuing to slide, falling roughly 25% this year, compared to last (source).  Especially with the poor global financial climate, consumers are less inclined to buy an expensive piece of home electronics, no matter what it is. And even in Japan, which has always been Sony's strongest base,  Xbox 360 sales are regularly out-pacing PS3 sales.

“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. . . in 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console — and [even] the PSP too.”

But can Sony lower prices on the console? They have been losing money on each Playstation made, and production costs don't seem to be decreasing. And if you add these slowing console sales to the perceived added difficulty of developing games for the PS3, not to mention Xbox's Project Natal, you have a distressing situation for Sony.

What should Sony do? Re-engineer a less expensive model of the PS3?  Or maybe thrown in the towel and concentrate on the Playstation 4? Or should they just try to secure some big exclusive releases to encourage hardware sales? Share your thoughts with the Internets in the comment section below.

  • -5 thumbs!
    hollowedsol since Feb 2008 | Jun 19, 09
    *** This comment is hidden because it's rated below the threshold. ***
  • 1 thumbs!
    chautemoc since Mar 2008 | Jun 19, 09
    Apparently they feel differently:

    quote Softpedia
    “Purely from a gaming standpoint there was no other choice for us,” revealed [Sony's Computer Entertainment head Kaz] Hirai. “Last year's Metal Gear Solid 4 was pushing 50GB as it was. If it was on DVD it would have been a 6 disc set. The packaging and cost would have been prohibitive and it would have been hugely inconvenient to consumers.”

    “Conceptually it may make sense to remove the Blu-Ray drive but in reality it doesn't make sense. Also we never want to be in the position where countries without super fast broadband connections are locked out of the PlayStation business because the PS3 has gone download only.”
  • 1 thumbs!
    | Jun 19, 09
    The 360 really isnt cheaper for what you get. Sure $200 for the arcade, throw in $100 for a wifi adapter, and $100 for the 60gb live starter kit and youre paying the same price as you would pay for a ps3. Sure sony may be able to sell consoles without an hdd and with a small usb thumbdrive for game saves or something, maybe save some money by removing the wireless in a lower model, but overall the $400 is WELL worth the price. IMO Bobby kotick is just spewing bs that he should have run by his pr people first so they could have told him not to say it. Does it REALLY matter if the 360 is "more profitable" when youre making the game for 3 platforms anyways?
    I can use my ps3 alot of things, i can go on the internet, go to youtube, stream media, share photos, watch blurays etc. Sure you can do this with a 360 but the ps3 does it in a much more elegant way. It isnt just a game console, its a home entertainment centre, and a damn good one for the price.
  • 0 thumbs!
    B2smoove since Oct 2008 | Jun 19, 09
    1st off you don't need the wifi adapter, I'm sure everyone has a router with RJ45 ports. Second it does matter to the devs if the platform is profitable. I have a 360 and a PS3 and I buy and play the 360 more because the 360 has better games. Better DLC. XBL just rocks. 3rd party games look better ( Ghostbusters and others ). I'm not a fan boy of either system but I'm starting to wonder if my PS3 was a bad purchase. Blu-ray is not all that impressive and the movies are expensive.
  • 0 thumbs!
    jdj1976 since Sep 2008 | Jun 20, 09
    plus if you add the fact that you have to pay to get full benefits of xbl in the long run the 360 is more expensive
  • 0 thumbs!
    brett108 since Nov 2008 | Jun 20, 09
    If you don't think Blu Ray is impressive, you don't have the right rig to watch it on. Also, you shouldn't defend a console(the 360 in this case) for not putting a feature in their system and then charging an exorbitant amount for it as an add-on. MS doesn't need you pandering to them. No one defends Sony for taking out backward compatibility.

    As for this Activision idiot, he must think that new buyers will mean more game sales. Sales are down because the cost of games is the highest it has ever been, and we are in the middle of a recession. If he truly wants to help the industry, Activision should take $10-$20 dollars off their new game prices. What? They don't want to do that? Didn't think so. I don't know how people like this get jobs.
    Last edited by brett108 :: Jun 20, 09
  • 0 thumbs!
    | Jun 20, 09
    No not everyone NEEDS wireless, but the fact that you can go out and buy a $20 usb wireless adapter for a pc, and ms charges you $100 for their own is bullshit. Its also bullshit that you have to bay $100 for a 60gb drive when you can buy a 320gb or 500gb drive for the ps3 and stick it in there. I own both a 360 and a ps3, and i dont even use my 360. If im going to play online games id rather have a few less people on and not pay than pay $5 a month to listen to a bunch of 12 year olds talking shit.
  • 1 thumbs!
    mathman47 since Jun 2009 | Jun 20, 09
    I don't play games, but my 21+ year old kids do. And I use the Internet, a lot. Now I have another node on my net. I recently purchased a Sony 52" HD TV. Did I buy a Blu-ray player or a PS3? PS3 of course, for not too much more than a player, but with a whole lot more capability.
  • 1 thumbs!
    THM since Jan 2008 | Jun 20, 09
    Well, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is a bona fide capitalist c#@#ock sucker.

    What he wants to get is maximum profit by ripping all gamers off.

    Sony PS3 can definitely survive without Activision, that's an undeniable fact.

    Ultimately, why doesn't he stop making PlayStation 3 games and just perform own fellatio for more profits?
    Last edited by THM :: Jun 20, 09
  • 1 thumbs!
    Byzantine since Apr 2008 | Jun 20, 09
    The problem is not in the console, but in the consumer. Sony has created a damn fine piece of equipment that is capable of things that are leaps and bounds better than any of it's competitors. It just isn't entirely conceivable to drop the price without sacrificing many of the things that makes the PS3 what it is.

    I have all 3 consoles, and i've gotta say the PS3 has impressed me far more than both the Wii and the 360 combined. The 360 has been marketed for casual gaming teenagers and fans of the shooter genre, unfortunately I'm neither. The PS3 is tailored to sell to the niche market gaming originally was, Die-hard gamers and techies. Their games are still akin to those of the days of old, and really i wouldn't have it any other way.
  • 0 thumbs!
    Moral Hazard since Jun 2009 | Jun 22, 09
    quote Byzantine
    The problem is not in the console, but in the consumer.
    I can't even begin to grasp that "logic." The PS3 is flat out too expensive, regardless of its abilities. Any console is a discretionary purchase. The Xbox and, to a lesser extent, the WII are more than viable alternatives. The accessory costs are a virtue since you can chose which to include and when. I don't like being made to pay for features I don't need.

    Activision is only saying what every company is thinking. There is nothing wrong with their logic; they are a business and they want to make money. A failed game that only captures a small percentage of a large market is still more profitable than a hit with a small user base. It is that simple. Sentimentality or virtuousness are irrelevant. If you feel they are ripping you off, then don't buy. I'm sure that will help make the decision for them.
  • 0 thumbs!
    | Jun 22, 09
    http://www.hiphopgamershow.com/?p=2962

    The PS3 sold the same amount of consoles in 2008, the only reason it is behind the 360 in total sales is because the 360 was out a year prior to the ps3 launch. Id hardly call over 20 million users a "small user base" Let me guess moral, you own a 360?
  • 0 thumbs!
    Moral Hazard since Jun 2009 | Jun 23, 09
    Wrong. PC only. And relative to the 360 and definitely the WII, 20 million is small, and getting smaller.
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -

Hardware Newsletter:
Email:



Compare Prices

Motherboards
Abit
ASUS
Gigabyte
MSI
eVGA
Intel
Tyan
More...

Processors
AMD
Intel
More...

Memory
DDR
DDR2
DDR3
More...

Video Cards
ATI
eVGA
XFX
BFG
Sapphire
More...

search for lowest prices
(0.1258/d/nova)