Activision CEO Steps Up His Calls For PS3 Price Cut

  • 87 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by FCKSNAP (2299 posts) -
@Krakn3Dfx said:
" Bobby Kotick chest beating, not supporting the PS3 would be like leaving money on the table.  Not going to happen, we'll still get our Soldier of Fortune 14 or whatever and whatever crappy Transformers game is based on the next movie in the franchise.But if Sony cuts the PS3 by $50 between now and XMas, you better believe Kotick will say he had something to do with it. "
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what's going to happen. The guy takes credit for everything, basically.
#52 Posted by ocdog45 (675 posts) -

fuck activision. this dumbass speaks for himself. but reflects on the whole publisher.

#53 Posted by Jackel2072 (2236 posts) -

Why do i see EA stepping in with a comment and defending the PS3?

#54 Edited by FlipperDesert (2081 posts) -

Dear Robert,

Instead of calling for a price cut on the Playstation 3 so people buy more of your games, perhaps a better approach would be to make more attractive games that I actually buy? It is a sorry state of affairs, but aside from a game where you wave a fake guitar around like an idiot and another game where you apin around on a wheel-less skateboard like an idiot the only real product I've spent more than five minutes reading about from Activision this year is Call of Duty, and I'm bored of first-person shooters.

Also, what's America like? I heard you don't have Daim bars over there? Please write back soon, I am eager to hear from you.

With regards, FlipperDesert.

#55 Posted by killdave (1073 posts) -

is this the end of my sony ps3 ?? will it become a bluray player only ??

Oh wait it already is.

(and urm Infamous on occasions lol)

#56 Posted by Banjo_ace (118 posts) -

dick move  Activision dick move

#57 Posted by killdave (1073 posts) -

I guess that means we will never see a Blizzard game on a PS ?

#58 Posted by WEGGLES (739 posts) -

First the DJ Hero/Scratch Ultimate DJ malakry. Then the Brutal Legend bullshit... now this? Activision REALLY wants people to hate them, don't they?

#59 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

What a laughable statement. 

There are over 23 million PS3 users, this dumb fuck needs to keep his mouth shut. 

I'm all for cutting back prices, but this guy is an idiot. 
#60 Posted by goodwood (600 posts) -

is that semen in that vial he is holding?

#61 Posted by Suicrat (3764 posts) -
"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates are likely to slow."

We can talk shit about Activision's lineup, Kotick's sanity, whatever the hell else we want, but at the end of this, the above is far from a false statement. Unemployment is rising, salaries and wages are falling, prices are falling across many entertainment media; companies need to find ways of providing more value to increasingly cash-strapped consumers on the entertainment front, because sure, this Christmas, several million moms and dads are gonna be buying their kids PS3s, but if they have to pay 400 instead of 300, the amount of games they give their kids alongside that system is going to shrink as well.
#62 Posted by Blaster (58 posts) -

How about dropping the price of new releases? That would increase the attach rates. Make it the same price as PC games. But, no he does not say that. Don't ask someone to do something you are not willing to do yourself

#63 Posted by Godzilla_Sushi (1084 posts) -

It's happened before, publishers quitting on a console.

But in the year 2009, HA!

#64 Posted by dQuarters (178 posts) -
@Ouroboros said:
" @mook201: Its also the developing curve and costs of the system as well.  Developing on the PS3 is much more difficult alltogether which prompts a lot of developers to half ass it or not do anything at all, like Valve who doesnt develop for the PS3.  It may be a stronger system, or may not be - it is at least more complicated and frustrating that pushes a lot of developers away when using it. "
I disagree ... slightly. All of what you said could be said of the PS2. But back then Sony had a market share that dwarfed the competition, so developers (no less frustrated with the PS2's infrastructure) would never consider NOT developing for the PS2 if they could help it.
Now as the shoe is on the other foot (to a lesser degree) ... Well let's just say that it's a good thing Sony ain't short on resources. Because if they did, PS3 could be Sony's Dreamcast. But if Sony couldn't afford the risk of putting out such a feature-heavy system, they would not have done so to begin with.

As for Activision ... Fuck them. It's no small feat to make EA look like a generous publisher. But Activision is doing a bang up job at it.
I think Bobby should shut his pie-hole, and consider cutting back on Activision's bored and bloated legal department if he wants to save a few pennies.
#65 Posted by Lydian_Sel (2479 posts) -

Even with a price cut it'll probably still be too expensive here, because I live in Australia... where we must sign contracts bartering out souls to play games...


I should move to Ontario


#66 Edited by MatthewMeadows (588 posts) -

Tretton v Kotick rap batlle anyone?

#67 Posted by mordukai (7133 posts) -

He remind me of Alfred E. Neuman. 

#68 Posted by Echelon730 (89 posts) -

Sony has a good platform for the PS3 but when the closest alternative is 1/2 the price its a hard sell in this economy

#69 Posted by CharlieTuna (328 posts) -
 GAAP Net Revenues by Segment/Platform Mix
Activision and Blizzard:
MMORPG $314 32%
PC and other 46 5
Sony PlayStation 3 131 13
Sony PlayStation 2 40 4
Microsoft Xbox 360 198 20
Nintendo Wii 134 14

Source: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/19573/Activision-Reports-BetterThanExpected-Q1-Financials/

Doubt that they would just give up 13% om their income just like that.
#70 Posted by SamuSlave (252 posts) -

Kotick, Robert A. The Devil?
#71 Posted by Set (148 posts) -

What a greedy piece of shit.

#72 Posted by theMcNasty (741 posts) -

Kotick's comments are so 2008.

#73 Posted by Babylonian (837 posts) -
@Lydian_Sel: I guess that would technically be an upgrade; by moving to Ontario, you'd begin getting games late, as opposed to getting them HELLA late in Australia.
#74 Posted by eclipsesis (1242 posts) -

in my opinion all the people that complain about the PS3's price sound like cheap bastards. I bought my PS3 at launch and i wasn't even working at the time, i just saved money that i got and it only took me about 4 months prior to the launch of the PS3. So whats the problem? if i could afford it then surely people can now?

This Activision boss is full of himself, first of they only publish one good game in my opinion which the COD series. And secondly have you heard that they are also trying to sue EA for publishing rights to brutal legend, he's a right little jelous bitch  

#75 Posted by Jayge_ (10222 posts) -

Bobby Kotick is a whiny amorphous bitch, news at 7.

#76 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4909 posts) -

Don´t know if any of you asked this before me, but, what does the PS3 price has to do with them stopping supporting PSP? just wondering. 

#77 Posted by Lydian_Sel (2479 posts) -
@Babylonian: We don't really get games that much later. In fact I'm pretty sure we got Street Fighter 4 before the US.
#78 Posted by Media_Master (3283 posts) -

I'm sure Sony would cut the price if they could,  but they can't so pony up

#79 Posted by Ket87 (441 posts) -

I would love to for Sony to call his bluff and turn the tables and say that Activision cannot develop for the PS3 or any Sony platform. Outside of Modern Warfare 2 everything Activision has lined for awhile are nothing but more whoring out of the Guitar Hero formula which might as well adopt the EA Sports system and call it Guitar Hero 2009, 2010, etc. He's obviously bluffing but it would be great to see what the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue would do to such arrogance. Maybe Activision Blizzard should start developing good games again like the two individual companies used to do. I'm sick of hearing about Guitar Hero and Rock Band, yeah Guitar Hero was fun. Four years ago, time to get over it folks stop buying that crap and maybe those arrogant bastards will make "good" games again. Not the same game with a different tracks and more clothes for your character you can't even pay attention to when your playing.

#80 Posted by piropeople13 (399 posts) -

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/05/15/report-sony-losing-about-40-on-each-ps3/

Easy for Activision to say.  They aren't taking a hit to the books.

#81 Posted by Meltbrain (2968 posts) -

Wow, that man is a dickhead. Eff you, Robert Kotick.

#82 Posted by squidracerX (763 posts) -

For the freakin' last time THE SONY PS3 IS NOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE OTHER SYSTEMS! Out of the box at launch YES it LOOKS more expensive, but for all the "planning for the future" credit that Microsoft and Nintendo get - they actually dropped the ball; Wii's motion control was FAULTY and they have to fix it (which is a huge fiasco because many games wont support the "wii motion plus" feature, and many gamers will never buy it), Microsoft didn't require hard drives and now want to be a downlaod hub..... if you want your system optionsand peripherals  to succeed you need to INCLUDE them in the system from the get-go. So yes it looks more expensive, but it HAD to be done to keep the system unified and the vision unified. That is why HD-DVD failed and Blu-ray won. SONY included it in every system and Microsoft made it an option so they looked cheaper, well I am PISSED that i wasted money on an HD drive, add that on the cost of my Xbox and its a uselesss feature now to boot! SONY realized that every system should have blu-ray, free online, big hard drives, and Wi/Fi: you gotta pay for that on other systems. SONY knew you needed a hard drive to really be a "dowload oriented" machine, they were 100% ahead of the game, now the other systems are trying to catch up. "Hey you should buy this 512 MB card so you can get some classic Nintendo downlaod games HA! Except for "rumble support"  SONY has been on the ball (they even had motion control via the PS3 eye and sixaxis form basically the get go), so go out and add all of your controller nunchuck wi/fi parts and hard drive HD peripherals up and you will see that my backwards compatible PS3, (which saved me from buying another PS2 by the way so that was $120 off right there), is not too expensive for the average consumer....

#83 Posted by Randolph (374 posts) -

Sony's response should have been "you first".  Activision music games are grossly overpriced.  They also still make plenty of money of their heavy hitters on PS3 still.  At the most, they'll only produce top selling games for the system like the COD titles and Guitar Hero, and stop porting their shitty games to the system. (everything else) Which I don't think any PSP or PS3 player would actually mind very much at all.

#84 Posted by geirr (2476 posts) -

I wouldn't really give a shit if Activision dropped the PS3.
They haven't released anything interesting (to me) since the C64 era;
and even then they kinda sucked.

#85 Edited by Systech (4078 posts) -
@squidracerX: Shut up, fanboy.

#86 Posted by squidracerX (763 posts) -

Ummm don't tell people to shut up you ass? its rude. Yes i am a fan of PS3 but I am a FACTBOY not a FANBOY. I own PC, PS3, 360, Gamecube, (soon Wii), Gamboy Advance, SNES, NES, Genesis... So I am really just a video game fan. And in fact i am a fan of the one console idea. my PC costs WAAAAY more than my PS3 and as I said I've spent as much on my Xbox... And its useless HD. So Im a video game fan, who is tired of hearing "how much the PS3 is". It is worth it, it was smart of them to bundle all that stuff with it, and its not more than other systems: its FACTism not FANism. Its like people complaining about $60 games... They USED to cost that much, the PS2 generation got them down to $50, but pretty much EVERY other console charged that much or MORE because of inflation. I bought Chrono Trigger and Mario RPG back on the SNES for like $80 when they came out!

#87 Posted by joecPS3 (1 posts) -

to ourorboros:

theres nothig wrong with the PS3's price. perhaps initially, but at 399.99 its a much better investment than the 360 elite. and just as worth while as the pro unit, when you consider all the extra costs. if you've been using xbox live for 2+ years, then you already bought a PS3.

consider also at it's hefty launch price(a whopping 599.99) to get everything out of the 360 that you could get with the PS3, you'd have actually paid MORE for the 360.

and i love 3rd party developers moaning like tarts about how hard it is to program for the PS3, when the in house guys make compelling(and by and large better games than 360)product.

last bit of info: the margin of victory the 360 has is only 6 million units. not that wide a gap for a system with a full year's head start.

sony is fine, the line-up for the next 2 years is amazing. considered against mass effect 2 and 2 new halos, i dont see any reason to pick up a 360 

#88 Posted by SL33TBL1ND (504 posts) -
@Ouroboros said:
"@mook201: Its also the developing curve and costs of the system as well.  Developing on the PS3 is much more difficult alltogether which prompts a lot of developers to half ass it or not do anything at all, like Valve who doesnt develop for the PS3.  It may be a stronger system, or may not be - it is at least more complicated and frustrating that pushes a lot of developers away when using it."

Its kinda sad really. The PS3 version of TF2 is terrible because they can't be bothered to release the DLCs. I love my PS3, I get a lot of fun out of it. And this really saddens me to learn that I might not get anymore games in the future.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.