Activision CEO "Would Raise Game Prices Even Further"

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...."

8/6/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Comments (111 posts)

Toggle Scrolling | Reload Comments

fluffer nutter
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:39:58 AM
Reply

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.

6 up, 0 down

NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:52:10 AM

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.

33 up, 2 down

Gabriel013
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:39:34 AM

NoSmokingBandit, I would give you multiple thumbs up if I could.

11 up, 1 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:32:43 PM

this guy should just be sent to a mental house for all his crap

4 up, 0 down

Bugzbunny109
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:44:51 PM

Mental institution?! Isn't he already working at one? lol

5 up, 0 down

Masterofallz
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 9:35:57 PM

@Bugzbunny109

Ba-zing.

1 up, 0 down

Ultimadesires
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:49:25 AM
Reply

Oh jesus christ, games cost enough already, £40 a game is not cheap, really each game shoould be at £30.

Though today i got Kane & Lynch, Unreal Tournament III & Condemned 2 for £5 each, which i was shocked at

11 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:59:15 AM

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!

5 up, 0 down

englishgolfer
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:07:26 AM

i live in sweden and games at gamestop are priced at 699:- that's just under $100. thank god for amazon in the uk!

6 up, 0 down

Corak
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:46:56 AM

@englishgolfer: Same here. I live in germany. I only buy from amazon uk^^

1 up, 0 down

ThePearlJamer
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:15:56 PM

@NiteKrawler

I think you might have to refinance your home just to pick it up.

1 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:19:47 PM

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.

0 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:34:16 PM

i feel so bad for all of u that suks

0 up, 0 down

Cpt_Geez
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:54:58 AM
Reply

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.

17 up, 0 down

BeezleDrop
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:56:33 AM
Reply

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.

5 up, 0 down

Mamills
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:01:55 AM
Reply

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.

9 up, 1 down

kevinater321
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:01:59 AM
Reply

hahahahahahahahaha

6 up, 0 down

Bugzbunny109
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:03:28 AM
Reply

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

6 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:37:24 PM

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

0 up, 0 down

Bugzbunny109
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:46:58 PM

Well........the money is still going in their pockets ;)

1 up, 0 down

jaybiv
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:04:19 AM
Reply

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.

6 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:08:09 AM

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."

3 up, 15 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:49:51 PM

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

1 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:40:11 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$

0 up, 0 down

Scarecrow
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:06:01 AM
Reply

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!

8 up, 1 down

Mamills
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:07:33 AM

good for u man

0 up, 0 down

mexgeo86
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:25:31 AM

I too have no Activision games and seeing their upcoming line, it's gonna stay that way.

3 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:41:07 PM

i have a few but hey i didnt pay full price for any haha

1 up, 0 down

Mr Bitey
Sunday, August 09, 2009 @ 10:41:14 PM

I think my last Activision game was for the NES. Haven't bought one since, and that's not changing anytime soon.

0 up, 0 down

Mista
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:08:18 AM
Reply

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.

3 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:45:42 PM

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

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:11:37 AM
Reply

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!

8 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:02:17 PM

$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.

5 up, 0 down

thepill
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 3:37:15 PM

Now after you apply for inflation, subtract for the economy and see if raising prices is a good idea.

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:20:18 PM

@thePill,

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.

2 up, 0 down

anjpikapp3
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:22:31 AM
Reply

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

0 up, 13 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:38:14 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.

2 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:46:38 AM

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

8 up, 0 down

anjpikapp3
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:26:24 PM

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.

0 up, 6 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:40:46 PM

Like I said. The higher the price goes the less I'll play. Especially mediocre games like Craptivisions.

4 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:24:50 PM

Nope, if GOWIII was $80 I'd wait to get it used, and they wouldn't see dime one of my money.

9 up, 0 down

Fane1024
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 3:33:47 PM

"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

7 up, 0 down

Douchebaguette
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:00:37 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.

1 up, 0 down

Bugzbunny109
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:30:30 PM

anjpikapp3
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 product’s cost is too high, even if it is ‘high quality’. 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?

1 up, 0 down

anjpikapp3
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 10:24:05 AM

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

0 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 10:38:52 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.

0 up, 0 down

Kiryu
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:26:03 AM
Reply

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ACTIVISION GAMES!!!!!!!!!

7 up, 2 down

HighLife
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:30:41 AM
Reply

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.

5 up, 0 down

Victor321
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:36:47 AM
Reply

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.

1 up, 0 down

ThePearlJamer
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:18:17 PM

I never remember them acting out like this in the many years ago...

0 up, 0 down

ThePearlJamer
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:18:19 PM

I never remember them acting out like this in the many years ago...

0 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:25:48 PM

no they've only become d-bags of late.

2 up, 0 down

Ricochet
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:43:14 AM
Reply

It's just another way of admitting "Sony-needs-a-price-cut-or-we-won't-support-you" statement is a load of hot air.

Games I HAVEN'T owned in the PS3 (updated as of Aug 07, 2009)

Activision Demos: Check
COD 4: Check
Guitar Hero: Check
Prototype: Check
Other Activision products: Check

Congratulations Bobby you just took the $ from M$..... I hereby declare you as Bobby$Kotick.

MODERN WARFARE 2: CHECK! (Pre-ordered)

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:53:44 AM

This statement just adds another layer onto the hypocracy cake. F**king tool. Kotex! Do us a favor and GO AWAY!

0 up, 0 down

Gabriel013
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:48:35 AM
Reply

With just a small number of exceptions, I typically refuse to pay more than £30 for my games now. You also need to consider the extra cash you will be expected to pay out on dlc. Who would pay $80-$100 for a game AND ALSO pay for dlc?

I know Ben mentioned inflation but I would also offer this example as a counter:
How much did it cost to make Jurassic Park?
How much would it cost to make it now with the technology of today? A fraction of the original cost. Why does that not seem to apply at all to games?

The tools these developers have at their disposal allow them to do so much more at a fraction of the cost it would to have acheived the same 10 years ago. Yes, our expectations have increased but even so..

3 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 1:11:52 AM

Technically, advances in technology raise production costs. They have to buy that technology and hire professionals to use it after all. Also, who wants Jurassic Park when The Dark Knight is available? Jurassic Park pushed the limits of technology then, just as newer games are pushing the limits of technology now...at least PS3 exclusives... :)

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:00:20 PM
Reply

OK, I gotta say it, but Bobby Kotick is verging on idiocy. This is the same person that blasts Sony for not reducing the cost of the PS3?

Wake up Mr Kotick I have some numbers for you. Sony spent development money in the BILLIONS, yes capitals, of dollars to develop the PS3 and you have the gall to demand that they take further financial loss by reducing the price of the PS3? And at the same time you spend 10s of millions developing games and yet charge $60+ for them, and want to raise your prices?

What the hell!? You know what? I'm usually very loathe to make extreme comments like this, but Bobby Kotick needs to shut the hell up, he's making a jackass of himself and Activision.

As for the serious point regarding game prices. If we took the price of consoles and games from the golden era of the 1980s and applied inflation, games would cost more, as would consoles. That is something people would do well to remember, and certainly older gamers should be able to. Inflation is here, it's been here, and it's not going anywhere.

7 up, 0 down

mexgeo86
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:32:42 PM

it's like that saying: best to remain silent and let others think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Kotick is living proof of that saying. Though 'fool' is an understatement for him.

4 up, 0 down

The_Struggler
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:49:20 PM

Mr. Kotick is a class act(sarcasm). If he had any common sense, he would have at least waited a couple more months before making this comment. Don't complain about the price-point of a console and then declare that your software prices should be raised.

1 up, 0 down

te la meti 14
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:19:13 PM
Reply

am still going to buy COD MW2 but activision their on crack they need to shut the F*ck up and make good games and keep their SH!t low am not buying that crap for 150 edition for some cheap night googles and a couple of disks

1 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:23:51 PM
Reply

This shouldn't have to be said, but any comment that does nothing but call Kotick a name will be deleted.

0 up, 2 down

Sir Shak
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 12:57:15 PM

Kotick should go f*ck himself . That is a suggestion , not a name .

13 up, 0 down

aaronisbla
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:29:47 PM

he got it around it here Ben, haha,

2 up, 0 down

sunspider13
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:01:33 PM
Reply

Kotick...*yawn*. That guy sure does like to rock the boat doesn't he? IMO I think that game prices are fine the way they are right now. Would dev companies like them to be higher? Of course but people would buy less new games and more used and some studios would go out of business.

The only two activision games that I would like to play are CoD MW2 and MUA2. And I'm getting those suckers used, months after they have been out. activision has never gotten any of my money and they never will.

0 up, 0 down

Sir Shak
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:09:04 PM
Reply

The whole "cartridges used to cost a lot" is an absurd argument . The reason everyone shifted to discs is that they were much cheaper to manufacture . Production costs of each unit went down drastically when discs were implemented . Discs are a lot easier to pirate because they are so cheap , but that is a trade-off the industry accepted a long time ago .

6 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:27:22 PM

Wrong argument. Discs came around and were cheaper, yes, but ALL technology gets cheaper with time. If the industry had stuck with cartridges, the cost would most certainly have gone down over time.

The bottom line is that video games don't cost much more today than they did a quarter-century ago; hence, regardless of the circumstances, and considering the DIFFERENCE in games then and now, I really wouldn't complain.

1 up, 2 down

Sir Shak
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 3:31:09 PM

The industry would have stagnated is what would have happened . There is no way cartridges could hold the amount of content discs are and were able to . Your beloved FF 7 came in 4 CDs if I am not mistaken . Tell me , could the N64 have a game like that ?

Last edited by Sir Shak on 8/6/2009 3:31:33 PM

1 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:06:47 PM

You're missing the point. The point is that if they had stuck with cartridges, the price would've inevitably gone done.

That's why your argument holds no water.

0 up, 0 down

aaronisbla
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:39:46 PM

Xbox360 has stuck with dvd 9 yet their prices are still the same. Hell, its higher than last gen's games. Whose to say cartridge based games would be the same price as disk based games now?

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 5:11:40 PM

Yea I had assumed the price hike on PS games was due to blue Ray discs. What's MS's excuse? Nintendo's software is still at 50 bucks a pop.

0 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 8:37:51 PM

M$ is M$.

2 up, 0 down

Jed
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 9:51:15 PM

@sir shak

The conversion from cartirdges to discs is not the point. the point is that today games cost many many times what they did back then, but still cost the same.

0 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:23:21 PM
Reply

Weren't cart-based games really expensive because Ninty and Sega, who controlled the manufacture of the carts (unlike CDs), charged the game compnies an inordinate amount per cart? Aren't CDs and BDs cheaper to manufacture than carts?

2 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:30:43 PM

you are correct sir, and now we have MS charging an inordinate amount to press extra DVDs beyond the first one.

2 up, 0 down

aaronisbla
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:34:57 PM
Reply

Ben the 2 guys above me have a point. Disk based games are cheaper to mass produce last time i heard and this was one of the reason for the lower cost disk based games compared to carts. look at ps1 compared to n64 prices on some of there games.

i highly disagree with your statement about being on our hands and knees. If prices were that high, like $100, the game industry wouldn't be where it is today, no way should a game cost 1/4th ( in the ps3 cases ) of the system you purchase it on.

Now if games were still cart based, i could see prices being higher but thats just not the case here

5 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:35:24 PM
Reply

I've got one word for this Kotex guy: Hypocrite!

3 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:53:07 PM

woops, sorry Ben didn't see your comment on not calling him names. Guy just boils my blood so here is the lowdown, gonna skip MW2 now.

3 up, 0 down

tlpn99
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:43:25 PM
Reply

If games cost £80/$100 I am sure they would be bought (NOT) what a joke!

Last edited by tlpn99 on 8/6/2009 1:54:14 PM

2 up, 0 down

BigBoss4ever
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 1:48:38 PM
Reply

stop being more greedy, start making more quality games and you will still make lots of money.

and some games are already selling at 69.99 for a regular copy or 79.99 for ltd ed. anyways

Last edited by BigBoss4ever on 8/6/2009 1:49:53 PM

2 up, 0 down

Robochic
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:19:30 PM
Reply

I'm happy to say i've never bought anything activision i find the quality of games from them crappy they never take their time and if they raise the price for games to each their own but they'll go bankrupt from no one buying their product.

Activision is like M$ money money who cares about consumers lets just keep pushing out crap and make the consumer pay for it. these two companies are made for eachother sony doesn't need that type of BS

3 up, 0 down

Oyashiro
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:48:08 PM
Reply

"Sir, I do believe you have gone mad with power."

4 up, 0 down

tes37
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 2:58:14 PM
Reply

Sony should tell Activision and Kotick to take their products elsewhere. Then they may come to their senses and start showing a little more respect for Sony and ps3 owners.

2 up, 0 down

Dustinwp
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 3:44:32 PM
Reply

I find it strange that Mr.Kotick can call out other companies for the price of their products being to high, but then turnaround and say he would love to raise the price of his. I cannot stand the blatant hypocrisy he spews! Please Mr.Kotick keep contradicting yourself like the ass you truly are.

Last edited by Dustinwp on 8/6/2009 4:01:19 PM

3 up, 0 down

jerocarson
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:08:20 PM
Reply

this guy is FISH!
what a waste

3 up, 0 down

Alienange
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:10:53 PM
Reply

Publishers and developers should be on THEIR hands and knees thanking ME for paying 60-70 for their games. Sorry, but you can go on about "extreme advances in technology" all day, but it doesn't cost that much for some guy to sit down at a PC and pump out graphics with 3D Studio MAX.

When we were buying King's Quest for 50 bux it's because the studio consisted of 2 people who spent all year putting it together and their selling it to a very limited dynamic was all the income they got. Now we have money grubbers like Mr Kotick here who gets paid to do NOTHING but complain that prices of his products should be higher. I don't see how a huge company's overhead should translate into ME paying 80-100 for a game.

For that matter, we could argue that movies have bigger budgets today than they used to. Yet I find myself paying the same for a DVD of Lord of the Rings as I paid for a VHS of Disney's Aladdin 15 years ago.

And besides, it's not like prices haven't gone up. The prices HAVE gone up by minimum 10usd.

Last edited by Alienange on 8/6/2009 4:12:40 PM

6 up, 0 down

aaronisbla
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:36:50 PM

well said Alienange

Last edited by aaronisbla on 8/6/2009 4:37:01 PM

2 up, 0 down

Crabba
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:23:36 PM
Reply

Sorry Ben Dutka, I normally agree with you but the comment that we should be down on our knees happy that game prices are still "only" $60 is just silly.

First of all like some others have said, cartridge games were always a lot more expensive than disc/floppy based games, sometimes as much as twice as expensive.

Second, you are apparently forgetting that the same thing applies to basically all kinds of media like music and movies. In fact I'm pretty sure music CD's were even more expensive 10-20 years ago than they are today! Same thing with VHS/DVD movies, which cost just as much 10-20 years ago (if not more) as they do today.

Personally, I think $60 by itself is an absurd price for a single game and anyone with just an ounce of patience can get these games for a fraction of the MSRP.

1 up, 1 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 8:37:01 PM

Whatever you say. You can pay $20 for a DVD and get 2 hours of entertainment or a game for $60 and any number of hours of entertainment...a guaranteed minimum of 4-6 but likely many, many more.

From my reasoning and if I want bang for my buck, I fail to see how you can complain, and I fail to see how $60 is "silly." It's actually extremely CHEAP, considering.

3 up, 1 down

Jed
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 9:53:48 PM

Like I said before, the price of cartridges and discs is not the point. The point is that today's games are incredibly more advanced and expensive than they were back then.

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 2:03:30 PM

Ok, you think $60 for a game is Super Cheap, I think it's way too much, point is I get every single game I ever wanted and I never have to pay more than $10-$20 for them, it's really that simple.

It's also pretty funny that the same people complaining about the PS3 being super expensive at $400-$500 (which is basically just what it costs to make the thing) happily pays $60 for a single game - a couple of those retail games later and whoops you just paid more than the entire machine just for a few games, DOH!

Even funnier, all these cries for a price drop of $50-$100 because they "can't afford the ps3", umm.. yeah that's 1-2 full price games, but you can afford them?

Oh and to Jed, well in that case games also didn't used to be a BILLION DOLLAR industry!! I wonder if these game companies can possibly make a profit, oh the poor buggers like EA and Activision, eh? I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank.

About value, well movie budgets can be $100-$200 million dollars, games well not quite that high, and still you can get a brand new 1080p blu-ray for 10-15 bucks. Like you've said yourself Ben, it's not a question of how many HOURS of enjoyment you get, but the quality of the experience. If it was all about the hours, then I guess the Lord of the rings movies should be like twice as expensive as most other movies, right?

0 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:30:41 PM
Reply

they raise the prices any more and i dam sure wont be buyin from them it hurts my pockets to get games now

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:43:32 PM

They go up anymore, it's only used games for me. I like to support the devs I like but $10 increase every generation is getting ridiculous.

0 up, 1 down

photo K
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:38:10 PM
Reply

Activision 2Q profits soared over its forecase today!!! w00t w00t!!! I dunno about you, but I'm happy with my gains lol.

Games have hovered around $50 to $60, and that's not too bad considered the quality has gotten so much better. I would be just as selective of my game purchases if they were $70. I'm not one to go buy everygame out there, only the ones where I know for Sure i'd play it through.

0 up, 0 down

bxshotboi
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 4:53:03 PM

i personally collect video games for all systems and if prices went up anymore there will be alot more money in my pocket and alot less money the devs and government will ever seeeeeee

0 up, 0 down

Qubex
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 9:18:23 PM

Do you own shares in Acti? If yes, I can understand your joy. I don't though.

Q!

"i am home"

1 up, 0 down

www
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 7:45:35 PM
Reply

Interesting article, i dunno how i missed it, maybe the heading wasn't that catchy, maybe there shoulda been 'Kotick' in the heading ;)

Well anyway, all i have to say is Bobby's growing large fat chicken wings, he should slow down, these same critics could mess him up if MW2 gets lower scores, cause i'll tell you 80% gamers nowadays rely on reviews.

Hell, this guy is given MW2 a bad name and i don't like it.

1 up, 0 down

kreate
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 7:53:38 PM
Reply

i liked everyone's comments here.

just to add, kotick does realize because of his threats/complaints (whatever u want to call it) to the ps3 and sony, his ps3 software sales will only decline right?

the point is to make money and one of the ways to do so is to keep the fans happy... or no?
or is he completely clueless of whats going on?

*i already decided not to play anymore call of duty games, the games werent for me, i only played it cuz everyone else likes it + hype. i beat call of duty waw in 5 hours (easy mode).
what a rip off IMO!

**but starcraft 2 and diablo 3 i am getting for sure no matter how expensive it is, i am a blizzard fan, too bad activision came in =(

Last edited by kreate on 8/6/2009 7:57:36 PM

1 up, 0 down

Qubex
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 9:20:26 PM

Yhea, all future Call Of Duty games, should I want to play them, will get from the bargin bin. Only buying the truly AAA exclusives for the PS3 now... have to say though, DiRT 2 does look nice for a multiplat... they really have that EGO engine running nicely on all platforms...

Q!

"i am home"

0 up, 0 down

Jed
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 9:58:43 PM
Reply

I can totally understand someone from a much smaller company saying something like this. But a company that has wildly popular games and sells $160 -(fill in the blank)- hero games should not be complaining, especially after that stunt he pulled telling sony to lower their price.

Last edited by Jed on 8/6/2009 9:59:44 PM

2 up, 0 down

Jed
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 10:06:14 PM
Reply

I just read that the Brutal Legend lawsuit was settled out of court.

That means that Activision is about to get a bunch of money they dont deserve for a game that they threw out.

Facking fantabulus.

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:12:45 PM

Dirty bastards....

0 up, 0 down

Banky A
Thursday, August 06, 2009 @ 11:35:08 PM
Reply

Every (most) new games still cost $118 over here.

0 up, 0 down

___________
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 4:52:09 AM

same here in oz.
ive never understood why the US is paying 60 bucks for each game and were paying double.
60 USD ATM is arround 90 AUD NOT 120.
and the americans complain games are to expensive.

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 1:16:40 AM
Reply

That's it! I'm going Marxist. To hell with capitalism!

0 up, 1 down

___________
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 4:49:52 AM
Reply

im sorry who needs a price cut?
how can someone be such a hypocrite?
how can someone so dumb and i dunno how to describe it, he complains how expensive something is than says games should be more expensive..... im lost.
ohhhhhh now i get it if its his product it should be priced higher so he can make more $$$.
if its not his product than it needs a price cut.
i thought you had to be smart hard working and honest to be a big companys CEO.
it sickens me that decent hard working people like my father who bust there a$$ every day to earn pickings loose their jobs just so this A$$ can keep his million dollar paycheck.
than these A$$ holes sit at their desk and shoot there big stupid mouth off and get paid millions of dollars.
if i was a share holder i would be demanding he be fired, hell even take him to court for slander.
boby you better prey i never see you in the streets because once im done with you you will be preying you were never born.
god i cant believe how stupid and selfish some people can be.
god ive never hated some one this much ever in my life, and ive had allot of fights.
go to hell you selfish a$$ hole.

2 up, 1 down

___________
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 5:02:26 AM
Reply

games are bloody expensive as it is.
its ok for most people because they buy 10 or so games per year thats fine thats buckleys 600 (assuming there in the US) bucks big woop.
me last year alone i spent 5K on games and accessories and consoles, not including PC including PC would be over 10K.
now i dont know about you but to me 10K is a fooking shat load of cashola.
i dont care how expensive games are now compare to years ago, the fact is take a less selling game KZ2 sold what 2M copies (i know its less more like 1.8 but lets use 2 its easier) ok 2M copies at 60 bucks each so im selling short because oz NZ allot of places are spending more than that but meh.
ok $60 times 2M.
thats 120M dollars.
KZ2 is said to cost between 40-60 to make.
THATS A MINIMUM PROFIT OF 60 MILLION DOLLARS, WHAT 60 MILLION DOLLARS PROFIT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?
god game publishers are so selfish, i wished i made 100K per year yet alone what these lazy SOBs earn.

Last edited by ___________ on 8/7/2009 5:04:59 AM

0 up, 0 down

bridgera
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 11:40:31 AM

Hold on, I need to do some quick math.

Let's see, bought 20 NES games for about $20/each, bought NES for $100, SNES for $100, 10 games for $15/each, PS2 for $300, 8 games for $50, 10 games for $10, PS3 for $500, 10 games for $30/each, 3 for $60/each, let's throw in another $300 for accessories. Let's say I spent $2k on my computer I built myself, including the price of games

400 + 100 + 100 + 160 + 300 + 400 + 100 + 500 + 300 + 180 + 2000

Gives me a lifetime total of about $4500.

Yep, you've definitely spent more on video games in 1 year than I have in 17 years of buying video games.

Sure, alot of those games I waited for the price to drop, because if you are willing to wait a year, a lot of games go to $20-$30. (That is less true today, a lot of games stay at $60 for years now).

0 up, 0 down

Perry Katy
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 10:02:44 AM
Reply

Such a greedy fantard........ :(

1 up, 0 down

bridgera
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 11:32:57 AM
Reply

This new Activision comment doesn't surprise me "drop your prices Sony so we can up ours".

Go ahead Activision, jack it up to $100/game. Why stop, hell, drive it up to $200/game.

Just like with most games, if I see something I like, I'm not buying any of your products until they fall into the $20-$30 range.

2 up, 0 down

Crabba
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 2:14:09 PM

Exactly, I don't care what they raise their prices to. They'll all be 5-10 bucks at Target eventually, LOL

0 up, 0 down

tanner1
Friday, August 07, 2009 @ 5:11:07 PM
Reply

@ the man/ lady with no name, Good profit but dont 4get Sonys cut. On topic, i hear what ur sayin Ben however, theres no need 2 bite the hand that feeds ya. Look how many Fords r out there compared 2 Aston Martins, i know they're only built in the uk but we all now whats better, kinda like ps3/ 360 debait no? If activision wants to rape our wallets then i think there sales will b very 1 sided cos while the xbox family aint got f**k all 2 play, the ps3 family will spend £10/ £15 less on supporting our 1st party devs ie r & c, uncharted 2, gt5, gow 3, mag, heavy rain etc

Last edited by tanner1 on 8/7/2009 5:12:38 PM

1 up, 0 down

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories cheats	PSP
SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs cheats	PS3
Neopets Petpet Adventures: The Wand of Wishing cheats	PSP
NFL Street 3 cheats	PSP
Resident Evil: Outbreak cheats	PS2
Dragon Ball Z Shin Budokai: Another Road cheats	PSP
NFL Street 2 Unleashed cheats	PSP
Fight Night: Round 3 cheats	PSP

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Activision CEO "Would Raise Game Prices Even Further"

Comments (111 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Grid 2 review	PS3
The Last Of Us review	PS3
Remember Me review	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger review	PS3
Fuse review	PS3
Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3

South Park: The Stick of Truth preview	PS3
Murdered: Soul Suspect preview	PS3
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3