Gamernode: News - Tretton tells Bobby Kotick to design a console

Actually, I think Kotick is probably onto something in this regard. The game market hasn't been really hit by the failing economy yet, but it will be, and a $100-$200 system is going to stand a much better chance of ending up under the XMas tree for little Johnny than a $400-$500 console will. Just look at the Wii, people who balk at the $399 price on the PS3 are eating up $250 motion controlled Gamecubes (I own one, I love it, but come on, the graphical power of the Wii is not where the Big N put their best minds this time, and we all know it. Mario Galaxy is a pretty small jump graphically from Sunshine. Try em both sometime, admit the truth to yourself).
That being said, you get a lot of goodness in the PS3, it's just a shame that 70% of prospective buyers either don't know what's included or don't have the a/v setup at home to truly take advantage of it. I own a 360, but I'm not going to speak to it's worth, seeing that I'm on my 4th unit, and my parents taught me that whole "if you can't say anything nice" mantra.

Yes, and the hardware manufacturers can lower to a $199 pricepoint easily, since profits just fall from a magical raincloud.

They're already eating dollars on each console sale at the current price point, going lower would turn buying a console into a charitable event in the behalf of the buyer. It's absolutely unrealistic and impossible for these consoles to hit a $199 at this time.

iirc, Nintendo is making a profit on each Wii sold. They could lower the price pretty low at this point and still come out on top. They won't, though, because there's no need to lower the price. Screw the buyers when there's a high demand!

I'm not going deep into this, but you get what you pay for. I wish they were all cheaper, but it's not realistic. I do not want a Wii type machine. That is exactly what we would have if M$ and Sony tried to hit that PP from day one. I want over-priced hi-def gaming for my over-priced 50" hi-def TV.

The Wii offers nothing for me personally. I'd rather have a XBOX or PS2. The Wii is why we are even talking about this. The controller is popular... it got popular and people can afford it, so it's kicking 360 and PS3 butt. If it had a normal controller we would not be having this conversation.

I personally like a $300-$350 tops PP for a top of the line next-gen system.

Guess I went a little deep. =P

I totally agree about the Wii, I think the assembly amount I've heard is around $100-$130 per Wii for Nintendo to produce, they could easily lower the price to $200 and still make a substantial profit. On the other hand from a corporate standpoint, you charge what the market will bear, and $250 for the Wii is obviously what the market will currently bear. I'm sure in the future when Wii sales start to drop significantly, you'll see Nintendo quickly drop the price to $150-$200 to meet price demands.
Really, who's worse, Nintendo for making a profit, or the Wii scalpers on Ebay and Craiglist making $100-$200 on top of Nintendo's profit?

Nintendo for not making enough. This sold out all the time BS is great for them. I don't care what people try to predict their losses are from not selling more. ; )

Kotick has a very valid point actually. Consoles historically haven't really taken off with the general public until they hit the sub-200$ range. If you want tens of millions of your consoles out there you have to hit that price point. There are only so many of the dedicated core gamers and HD audience who will pay 300-400$ for a console.

Both MS and Sony know this and are trying to figure out how to manage it but Sony is kinda screwed on that point. Just too many expensive components in the ps3 (the blu-ray drive alone is blood expensive). Add to that the fact Sony is virtually hemorrhaging cash already so just can't afford to push it any further untill costs actually come down.

MS on the other hand is much closer to being able to slash the price in the next year or too and in a better financial position than Sony to do it. I believe the main reason they haven't so far is their shareholders are tired of the gaming division running a loss and MS wants to balance those concerns against trying to increase market share.

Tretton's comment about "But, you know, I’m surprised by it, because I would never venture to suggest what software publishers should price their software at. So I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to suggest what hardware should be priced at." is hysterically really because console companies including Sony have done exactly that to software houses many many times.

A: I don’t know, maybe he should design a platform.

Strong words there buddy, but would you in fact buy a console made by activision??

"The new, SUPERPOWERED Activisioneversoftizzardendiuniversal Can play any game known to man! For the low price of 200 DOLLARS!!! it comes with retarted looking graffiti, a point and click adventrue menu through a demonic church, loading screens of a man getting th rown out a window, and SLASH!!"

no, no i would not. Thank you.

Although if it played every game known to man.....



Now on to the real.


Originally posted by SoDev "I'm not going deep into this, but you get what you pay for. I wish they were all cheaper, but it's not realistic. I do not want a Wii type machine. That is exactly what we would have if M$ and Sony tried to hit that PP from day one. I want over-priced hi-def gaming for my over-priced 50" hi-def TV."

Spoken like a true american.

MY thoughts are, like Rtanger said, is that profits dont come from the sky, they need to be amde. Now, from what i have gathered, sony lost money whent he ps3 was made, they needed to sell, I believe, 11 games per system to generate a profit, small at that.

Kotick needs to get his head straight, especially for having a wii gh without the actually controller, just a case, for the same price as a functional controller.

Idiot.

A: I don’t know, maybe he should design a platform.

Strong words there buddy, but would you in fact buy a console made by activision??

"The new, SUPERPOWERED Activisioneversoftizzardendiuniversal Can play any game known to man! For the low price of 200 DOLLARS!!! it comes with retarted looking graffiti, a point and click adventrue menu through a demonic church, loading screens of a man getting th rown out a window, and SLASH!!"

no, no i would not. Thank you.

Although if it played every game known to man.....



Now on to the real.


Originally posted by SoDev "I'm not going deep into this, but you get what you pay for. I wish they were all cheaper, but it's not realistic. I do not want a Wii type machine. That is exactly what we would have if M$ and Sony tried to hit that PP from day one. I want over-priced hi-def gaming for my over-priced 50" hi-def TV."

Spoken like a true american.

MY thoughts are, like Rtanger said, is that profits dont come from the sky, they need to be amde. Now, from what i have gathered, sony lost money whent he ps3 was made, they needed to sell, I believe, 11 games per system to generate a profit, small at that.

Kotick needs to get his head straight, especially for having a wii gh without the actually controller, just a case, for the same price as a functional controller.

Idiot.

The problem is that the general public isn't going to be a concern for a while. Hell, the pathetic state of software sales for the Wii pretty much tell us that it's going on novelty/price alone. For companies like MS and Sony, whose systems don't come with Mario, Pokemon, Zelda and Metroid, this conservative approach is what's necessary. These console life cycles cannot be three-year affairs.