Let's face up to facts: the entire purpose of being in business is to make money. However, be that as it may, you should also try to avoid ticking off your loyal customers.
Activision has already taken a little heat from PlayStation 3 owners after CEO Bobby Kotick threatened to stop supporting Sony's machine unless they dropped the price. Analysts, developers and journalists everywhere dismissed this (it ain't gonna happen), but Kotick has made another statement that's bound to get some negative attention: according to Spong , Kotick said that if it was up to him, he'd "raise the prices even further" in regards to software. During an investor relations conference call, analyst Tony Gikas asked about the publisher's "comfort level" concerning the more expensive titles they have on tap ( DJ Hero , Tony Hawk Ride , the Prestige Edition of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 , etc.). Activision president and CEO of publishing, Mike Griffith, issued a diplomatic response by saying there has been "very strong retailer acceptance and support for all parts of our plan, including…our price points." Kotick, on the other hand-
"And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."
Yeah, well, that might not be the best idea, Bobby. But before everyone goes ballistic, he may have been referring to the standard $60 price of games, and if that's the case, he does have a point. We have to remind you again that 20 years ago, those cartridges we all loved cost $50 – $60 (sometimes even $70). Taking the extreme advances in technology and inflation into account, we should all be down on our hands and knees thanking the financial Gods that video games have magically stayed about the same price whereas by all rights, they could very well be a hundred bucks apiece.
Even so, Kotick's words won't make him any new friends in the gaming populace, many of whom look at Activision's holiday lineup and go, "um…well, I guess I can get one of 'em…."
Sixty percent through the read I was thinking "What a freakin' jackass" and I'm still thinking that but then you brought up the point that I have been making over and over again about the price point of games in relation to what they have been since the late eighties. I don't like the comments that Kotick make and yeah, we understand it's a business and they need to make money but this guy has recommended that Sony reduce the price of the PS3 and now he's saying how he would prefer the pricing on Activision games to be higher. Either this guy is some marketing genius and thinks that creating a buzz with controversial comments is going to get them more attention, thus producing more interest because we all know how backwards some of the consumers are or he's got a mini Heine kegger with him at all times. He's certainly perked my attention but not my interest.
I think the biggest thing to consider is the user base. Back when everyone was buying $50-60 snes cartridges there werent near as many being sold as there are now. Prices can stay the same because they are selling to a much larger audience. Once the game is made, manufacturing costs are minimal, so after they pay for development the rest is pretty much pure profit.
Activision is just talking out their arse again. Its pretty clear that they dont care about their customers much.
NoSmokingBandit, I would give you multiple thumbs up if I could.
this guy should just be sent to a mental house for all his crap
Mental institution?! Isn't he already working at one? lol
Oh jesus christ, games cost enough already, Â£40 a game is not cheap, really each game shoould be at Â£30.
Though today i got Kane & Lynch, Unreal Tournament III & Condemned 2 for Â£5 each, which i was shocked at
I agree. Plus, you look at Sweden and other high sales tax countries and wonder what kind of a loan they would need just to get Uncharted 2!
i live in sweden and games at gamestop are priced at 699:- that's just under $100. thank god for amazon in the uk!
@englishgolfer: Same here. I live in germany. I only buy from amazon uk^^
I think you might have to refinance your home just to pick it up.
I just read something on Amazon U.S. that indicates it will now ship games overseas to certain countries. I believe Germany and Sweden are on that list.
Now if only Amazon Japan gets on board. Either way, I've found a damn good import site that has had every import game I've wanted, even those out of stock at Play Asia and the like, at reasonable prices.
i feel so bad for all of u that suks
Mann F activision and bobby kotick. The ps3 is too expensive though, activision has lost its damn mind. II think imma buy MW2 used now, activision will not be getting my hard earned dollars anymore they are just way to effin cocky.
Like they even need to raise the price, Activision has already made so much. This year alone they will make even more money from all the COD business. Mr CEO needs to be taken off his high horse.
lol, not like it really affects me right now.
Activision doesn't really have much i want. i mean call of duty MW2 maybe. i don't play rhythm games and i don't buy peripherals.
(Those usually end up gathering dust somewhere.)
But i got MAG, Uncharted, The last guardian, Heavy Rain, GT5 and God of war 3 etc coming and will pre-order brand new just because, well… they are great games and the studios deserves it.
and that will be about $360 (maybe a little more Depending on what good down-loadable titles come along) spread across a few months.
but when it comes to Activision/blizzard, I'll just wait n get MW2 used off eBay or Craigslist.
I'm done with that jackass Kotick.
I know some people wont agree with me on this but meh… that's just my point of view, Either way my gaming Calendar lineup is looking great.
Raising software prices will affect the gaming industry greatly. If software prices are 1/3 the price of the gaming system itself, then there will be major issues. Imagine if game prices were $100 instead of $60. That would mean that if I go out and buy an Xbox 360 pro; I will end up paying 1/3 of the price of the actual system, just for one game. That is crazy. Game prices are good the way they are; developers might not like them, but if they go up any higher, then there will be anarchy. If kotick wants to raise game prices; sure, but his company will go bankrupt very soon. lol
i dont even think all devs think the prices should go up cuz not even the devs would like to be payin 100 bucks a game its just the idiot mouthing off yet again
Well……..the money is still going in their pockets 😉
This guy is a looney piece of work. Any comments he has made about the PS3 should go out the window. I guess he wants Sony to take it in the shorts so his company can get more coin.
The historical price of video games is irrelevant, unless you look at EA killing the sports competition when 2K was selling their games for $20 less and EA had to respond.
Game prices are where they are because $50-60 is, and historically has been, the sweet spot for games.
Well, the "sweet spot" is fixed on a ratio, not a number. That's just due to the economy and inflation.
Basically, $50-$60 most certainly isn't the same thing as it was 20 years ago. But the impact it has on the consumer – which would be closer to $80 today – is the "sweet spot."
I'd say 50-60 is the sweet spot just because there is so much more competition out there now than there was in the old days. Back in the day you got a game cartridge and it had to last a long time because high quality games weren't releasing at the rate they seem to be now. There were fewer companies and you really only had about 1 title in each genre a year that was worth getting.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 8/6/2009 2:22:39 PM
alright so now lets say the economy got so bad to the point where we need to work 2-3 8 hour shifts just to get a 60$ game that sure isnt sweet u need to think about the economy than u choose if a game is worth the 60$
You guys see why I don't buy games from this crap company?
STILL proud to have never bought an Activision game in my life!
good for u man
I too have no Activision games and seeing their upcoming line, it's gonna stay that way.
i have a few but hey i didnt pay full price for any haha
I think my last Activision game was for the NES. Haven't bought one since, and that's not changing anytime soon.
Activision has turned into a title milking cash cow that pumps out multiple useless sequels. They have milked the GH series to the point where I don't bother with it anymore, and ifcthey didn't have CoD I wouldn't have bought a single Activision game. I want MW2 bad but definitely won't be buying the prestige edition. Maybe the hardned edition. I usually refuse to pay more than 80 for collector editions. I have the Demons Soul collectors in my sights and prob Uncharted 2. Everything else this year I purchase will be standard edition.
they milked the gh series just like u said cuz i liked gh3 but then gh aerosmith suked and gh world tour is a rock band in disguise lol and ima get the prestige edition just for the night vision
40 to 70 for cartrage games? Eh, I never paid more then 40 for a new NES or SNES game. PSOne games at their highest where 40 bucks. I didn't start to notice a drastic price rise until the PS2/Gamecube generation and then again this gen.
About little Bobby here, I'm so effing sick of this tool opening his mouth. 60 bucks for a game is already high especialy for mediocre multiplatform games AND especially the ones Craptivison put out. This effing hypocrite can stuff it. I won't be buying any of their games. Not even MW2. This is it. I'm done with them. Screw you Kotex's!
$40 or a NES game? Alright, now go apply inflation and see how much that cartridge would cost today, I bet it's more than $60.
Now after you apply for inflation, subtract for the economy and see if raising prices is a good idea.
You can't "subtract for the economy". Inflation means that we pay more for the same product. Development teams have grown game complexity has increased leaps and bounds, so the costs of development have ballooned way beyond the old days. Since the cost of games hasn't even kept pace with inflation we're actually paying less for more as it is. Developers are, on the other hand paying more for games and selling them for less (in real terms). The saving grace is the increased market. But the margins on most games are razor thin, and a lot of games don't make a profit.
If they were to "subtract for the economy" and offer even lower prices on games their margins are such that they'd have to sell a boat load more copies to make money. At the end of the day, developing games is a business, it's a job of work and people have to be paid. If companies don't make a profit, they go out of business and people lose their jobs. Not a good situation.
This is understandable…everybody wants more money and hey what's wrong with that? Don't you wish you had more money in your wallet? I would consider raising the price of a game as long as the content was sufficient. IE – GOW3, MGS4, K2, etc. I would be more then happy to pay $80 even $100 for…however, there are some titles I would not even put in that category like Army of 2, Fear, Guitar Hero (just the game).
IMO; What needs to be considered it a system that rates the game before it is released. A separate Sony team could be in charge of this rating system and they make the call of whether or not the game is worthy of a higher price tag…again, emphasizing on content of the game not just huge name game designers (ie EA, Activition, etc.). Just because it's a big name does not mean the game is going to be great and worth $100. And yeah, I could see how this could go bad…but it could be good as well, especially if the "team" is only concerned about game content.
Last edited by anjpikapp3 on 8/6/2009 11:29:01 AM
No way. Game quality is subjective, and therefore should not be put in the charge of one group of people. Every game needs to be the same price and I should be able to decide if I think it is worth it. Everyone derives different utility from any one purchase they make.
100 for game? Your on crack. MGS4 is my favorite game this gen but I wouldn't pay 100 for it. Price control would ruin games and the higher the prices go the less I'll play games. Terrible idea. Devs can and should set the price and the consumer will choose to pay it or not. If consumers decides the prices are too high and the company can't sell games then screw em. That's how a free market works.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/6/2009 11:50:52 AM
to "Terrible idea. Devs can and should set the price and the consumer will choose to pay it or not."
Exactly….so it does not have to be specific to team but who sets the $60 price tag?? If CoD:MW2 came out and was $75 for the game would you still buy it?? would it be worth $75? what about GOW3? if GOW3 came out and was $80 would you buy it? I know I would….bc i know the series has been good and that the final chapter is a must have no matter the price.
If games went up to $80, yeah you would be mad but would that stop you (literally brick your PS3) from buying games?? NO. you paid to much for your PS3 to not buy games…we all did.
Like I said. The higher the price goes the less I'll play. Especially mediocre games like Craptivisions.
Nope, if GOWIII was $80 I'd wait to get it used, and they wouldn't see dime one of my money.
"This is understandable…everybody wants more money and hey what's wrong with that?"
Ummm…it's one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
@Ben (admittedly off topic)
"Let's face up to facts: the entire purpose of being in business is to make money."
I would argue that the purpose of "business" is to produce goods and/or services that add to the well-being of the community; making money is merely a necessary consequence. If more businesses were run according to that dictum, the economy would be much more healthy.
@anjpikapp3 (second posting)
Like World, I wouldn't buy (any) game at $80 (barring peripherals, of course); hell, I almost never pay more than $30 for a game.
Oh, and FUCK Kotick.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 8/6/2009 3:47:14 PM
Both your points have huge gaping holes. The fact that you think prices should be determined & advised by "ratings" is silly. We could be playing the most s**t game in the universe, containing jack s**t for content, but to someone else it could probably save their life. Literally. And vice versa. Basically different things are worth a different amount to different people.
And dude, greed is not cool. End of. You'd pay $100 for a game?!! Hell, if that were to happen we better hope consoles will be cheaper; the alchemy of equivalent trade.
You need to understand that without consumers, producers CANNOT exist. If MW2 was $80 some people will, indeed, buy it. But more people will buy it if it had a $60 price tag compared to the amount of people that would buy it if it was $80. There is a point when a productâs cost is too high, even if it is âhigh qualityâ. For example, look at $20,000 gold watches. It's is definitely worth it, but a lot of people don't buy it because they can't afford it. The same goes for video games. Not many people are rich, you know 😉 Developers want all gamers to buy their products, not just the "rich-gamers" lol. If parents are concerned about the price tag of the ps3; you really think that adding the fact that the games cost $80 or $100 would be a good idea?
OK so no one is willing to pay $80 for a new game…but everyone is willing to pay $40 for a new game?!? and everybody knows why… because its cheaper!! well if all games went up to $80 you wouldn't have a choice unless you waited until the price dropped a year later.
I understand most ppl will not like this change but we would have to live with it if developers decided to increase their rates. I'm not saying this (Kotick words) is the right thing but if one developer decides to charge more, what stopping everyone else??
If game prices increase, I'm sure mostly everyone will bit the bullet and buy the games (the good ones in their opinion) when they first come out.
Last edited by anjpikapp3 on 8/7/2009 10:25:14 AM
anj: You need to read up on supply and demand. Game prices go up, game sales go down. Game sales go down, game prices go down. The invisible hand and what not.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT ACTIVISION GAMES!!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't buy any of those games at $30 price point with the list of PS3 exclusives coming out that will be getting my hard earned $60. I would much rather have Uncharted, R&C, GT5, GOW3 and some others that are coming a little later.
If COD4 wasn't the modern behemoth of warfare as it is now….Activision will be at least somewhat different.
I've never seen Acti like this.
I never remember them acting out like this in the many years ago…