Activision stays firm on $60 price for next-gen titles

by Ross Miller { Oct 5th 2005 at 3:00PM }

Stacked Money (225) Speaking to Forbes magazine, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has reaffirmed his position on pricing next-generation console games at $60 – a 20% increase over the current generation. According to Kotick:

"We've said we're to going sell those products at higher price points until … the market forces us to sell them at lower price points, which we don't think is likely. We don't really think that there's a lot of price sensitivity on the part of the consumer, if you're delivering value."

Of course, the problem therein is with making sure the next-generation games are all worth $60, and Activision's lineup of Tony Hawk, Call of Duty, and Quake sequels, may or may not have that added value over their predecessors.

[Thanks, bandersnatch]

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Fuzz @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Yay! 3 cheers for Activision! Huzzah!

Right, I'll add them to my list of companies to boycott.

1.EA
2.Activision

jc @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Anyone else feel like videogame producers are the next recording labels?

There is no way I am paying $80 cdn for a videogame.

recklessgemini @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

guess I won't be purchasing their games. At least not until it's a few months old.

Spank @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

GET READY FOR A BOYCOTT, FOLKS!

nah... people are zombies. They'll pay whatever amount they're told to.

zenprism @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

So, do I buy an Xbox 180 version of an Activision game for $50 or a prettier Xbox 360 version for $60? Hmm...

robotplague @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I will not pay $60 bucks for a game, with taxes thats like $65. You can buy pretty much buy a Nintendo DS for the price of two of those games. Obviously I understand it's going to cost more money to make games this next generation but $50 bucks is where I draw the line (even then rarely do I buy brand new games at $50).

thies @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I don't see any Activision or EA titles which interest me. But then again all those sports titles still sell very well each year for reasons unknwon to me.
The main point though is, has everyone really forgotten that a number of cart based games back in the 16bit days did cost even more?

bloodomen13 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

�We�ve said we�re to going sell those products at higher price points until � the market forces us to sell them at lower price points, which we don�t think is likely. We don�t really think that there�s a lot of price sensitivity on the part of the consumer, if you�re delivering value.�

And there you go... straight from Activision's CEO. They're able to release the games at the same price as the current gen, but are just being greedy bastards and increasing the price to increase they're profits. Development costs have not increased that much.

If they're willing to drop back down in the case of consumer activism against the higher price point then there is no increased development costs.

And like sheep the general public will happily plop down $60 per title thinking that they're getting more bang for the buck since it's a "next gen" console.

soupbun @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

lol, while DVD and CD prices drop dramatically, video game kiddies are willing to pay even more thru their nose for games. That's the entertainment trend now. Yeah, I believe what Activision is saying, but hey, that's the sad reality of the society we live in now. Hooked VG junkies. Personally, I haven't paid over $25 with tax for a game in 8 years now, thanks to Player's Choice and other bargain deals.

KingZoidberg @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Making games more expensive will have little effect on A-list titles. Smaller games however, would definitely suffer. Who's going to give a $60 game a chance when it doesn't have a years worth of hype behind it.

djSyndrome @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

"You can buy pretty much buy a Nintendo DS for the price of two of those games."

Um, don't you mean the other way around? :P

BouncinDave @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

And linking this with an earlier article, us in the UK will get the games for �60!

Great...

s2 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

This doth suck. And it's a tricky road for the publishers, because if they charge too much, they'll sell less, which can translate to lower profits. Charging too much increases rentals, and also the potential for piracy. It means you'll be more selective about what you do buy.

djSyndrome @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Whoops, just re-read my comment. I thought you said 'Nintendo DS game'. Sorry, I blame the lack of sleep on Burnout Revenge. My apologies!

SickNic @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I would pay $60 for call of duty, but I am laughing at anyone who will pay $60 for Tony Hawk.

If you companies want to charge $60 for a game, then you best be putting $60 worth of gameplay and content into those games.

IE: Call of duty 2 for xbox360 for $60. Call of duty 2 for PC will probably be $40.

I doubt the xbox360 version will come with $20 worth of extra content.

Trevor @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

$60 is nothing. Games have been priced at $50 for some 20 odd years. Concidering inflation and the rising cost of game development, this isn't a shock at all, in fact we should be greatful they have stayed so low this long. I recall when SNES games cost $70-80, when was the last time you saw a game cost that much? The fact is, even with the price hike, gaming is cheaper than it was when I was a kid. Even worse is if you read the comments on the 360 games, everyone always complains how games need to look better in one way or another. Guess what, it takes time and talent to create good looking games, both of which take money.

Trevor @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

SickNic - that $20 price is created by the added fees and QA that you have to pay for to get your game on a console. The fees are why the 360 only costs $300 while a computer that could play the game at the same fidelity would run you 4 times as much. It all evens out in the end. But I agree with you on one thing: I don't think Tony Hawk is worth that much. But Call of Duty and Quake are IMO.

JPRacer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I was planing to get CoD 2 but I'll pass (I'll rent it for sure). Prices should go down, not up, just ask Mark Rein.

And the rising cost of game development is a cheap excuse...

Fuck EA, fuck Activision.

anonymous coward @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

People are too unprincipled to boycott $60 games en-masse. However, with every extra penny they charge, they drive more of the market towards either buying used (if an that's an option at the time) or waiting until the price drops (and quite possibly buying used anyway.)

The market sets the price, not the company. They may find they sell fewer enough games that the $60 price tags simply aren't as profitable.

There's no magical anger cutoff between $50 and $60. Just a slow erosion of consumer interest. Anything at or below $20 and it's an impulse buy for me. Above that, and the interest is tempered by the difference between $20 and the actual price.

stewie Gr1ff1n @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Im still pissed at ea for getting exclusive rights for nfl games. nfl 2k5 is still the best nfl game it only cost $20.00 so they can sell there games for alot less

Mike @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

NINTENDO REVOLUTION AND REASONABLY-PRICED GAMES FOR LIFE!

Chris K @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

The thing that makes me sad is that 95% of the buying public is going to say "thank you sir may I have another".

I'm not one for crusades, but screw it. I'm not going to buy a game for $60. I will sooner pirate games than pay $60.

So now it's no EA, and no Activision. This ain't so hard! :)

Eric @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

If games were the prices of Music CD's don't you think that volume would more then make-up for the price decrease?

I hope to god this is what Nintendo can do. They should, they all should. I'm finding it harder and harder to be a gamer these days, and that is truely sad. I'm being relegated to buying players choice games and a couple portable games a couple times a year. There's no reason for this.

If they want to grow the industry and not plummit it into oblivion they had better make the games at the most, CD price. The middle class is shrinking around the world and these companies are still making games for upper middle class society along with the richer parts of society. Nintendo is the only company i see coming back into reality.

OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

This is fucking ridiculous. These companies are scum with the shit they pull. It's fucking pathetic when you have to take out a loan from the bank to pick up a new game.

Do they realize not everyone is indepently wealthy and pull out their Xbox when their friends come over for wine and cheese? Every day it's becoming harder and harder to be a gamer.

If you ask me,they should have ONE console that all hardware companies contribute to and then split the price of that between them. Then,all games should be made for it and sold for $20-$25.

If only this were a perfect world. Hell,with these prices it's not even a sane world nevermind perfect.

e2go @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

>

The 360 media is the same size as the Xbox media. You're not receiving more techically, but the content should be better than last generation. Now Blu-Ray media, I don't even wanna think how much those games are gonna cost...

Rare Hare @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

"$60 is nothing. Games have been priced at $50 for some 20 odd years"

erm... no. actually for a while during the last gen they would pften hit shelves at MORE than 50 bucks, and there wasn't really a standard price point for new games. people would buy new games for $60+ bucks then, and they'll do it now.

i know iv'e got no problem scraping an extra 10 bucks out of my wallet for a game i want. i paid 60 for my limited edition of Resident Evil 4 for the Gamecube, even though the limited edition extras are pretty lame. the extra 10 really didn't affect me too much.

Murc @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I am likely going to be one of the sheep...because hey, what can one person really do to these huge companies? nothing

I think 50 should be the cap, I think 50 is high, but if its a game i've had my eye one for a few months then I might shell it out, but I dont make near enough to out and buy all the games i want to have.

Makes you wonder whats the better solution? Sell 10 games (60 apiece) and make $600, or sell 30 games (20 apiece) and make $600. I honestly believe if they lowered the price down to around 25-30 bucks they would fly off the shelves much quicker, and more people would own your system, and that should be there goal. The Video game industry should act like a Ford, and not a Ferrari.

Sloopydrew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

$60 for yet another Tony Hawk game? That'd be like paying a toothless hooker $100 to bite you.

Sloopydrew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

As for the $60.00 price-point, maybe Activision man is right and enough morons will pay that bloated price for "quality" entertainment like the next Tony Hawk remake ... er ... "sequel." But not me. Nintendo tried pulling this crap with the N64 and I didn't buy a single game at the $60 price. I waited until they dropped at least $10. $50 is the maximum I will pay for a game. If Activision and other companies want to waste money paying huge salaries to "talent" such as Tony Hawk, rather than making great games, they can take the hit to their own wallet.

duerra @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

This, my friends, is why the used games market is going to explode next generation.

calvinhobbes @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Here's the deal, some games are worth the 60 bucks... Halo 3, yeppiers.. Gran Turismo 5 when it comes out, sure bet! FF13 or 14 in the future.. yep.. All because you get a return on the money. Now a game where you only end up playing for 10 hrs. 40 bones should be the standard, with increase/decrease depending on game play length.