Tecmo kindly asks for a PS3 price cut

by Andrew Yoon { Jul 3rd 2009 at 1:00PM }

... And for good reason, too. The company is bringing out two PS3 exclusives this year: Quantum and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2. Considering its third-party status, Tecmo is really risking a lot by abandoning a traditional multiplatform approach.

"Whenever I discuss this with Sony reps I always ask them: 'Please cut the price'," Tecmo's Kenji Matsubara told CVG. "Sony introduced cutting-edge technology in the PS3, that's why people in the industry accept that the PS3 cost is so high, but we'd welcome a price cut."

That's certainly a change of tone from a different third-party publisher, Activision. That company most recently made waves when it half-heartedly "threatened" to remove support for PlayStation products. In spite of the difference in approaches, it's clear that the PS3's price needs to be lowered. Not only does the customer want it, but publishers are demanding it as well.

Tags: kenji-matsubara, price-cut, ps3, tecmo

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

uncle jesse @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:11PM

Wow, Sony must be really feeling it from all sides. Of course consumers want a price cut, but now developers are itching for one, too. From Sony's side of things, they can't afford to cut it. They lose even more money on each system if they do so. This is a dilly of a pickle.

kacex @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:24PM

Price cut friday reloaded!! Developer's episode

Alphathon @ Jul 4th 2009 5:12PM

The thing is, the publishers/developers want it BECAUSE the consumers want it, to increase the install base.

Nick @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:17PM

When you think about all that you are getting, $400 is not that much money. Plus, this generation of consoles is expected to last longer than any other, so you will definitely get a solid return on your investment.

It still baffles me that people will drop $400 on a new phone, or a similarly absurd amount on a device that lets you read books (a.k.a. Kindle) but they won't pay $400 for a powerful gaming system - that does MORE than just play games.

If people look at the real cost of the other systems, they really aren't that different.

Badboy1979 @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:47PM

Thing you have to consider is that if you pay $400 for a phone 95% of the time you're going to be able to use all its features... but the fact is that ALOT of people don't even have HDTVs yet so paying extra for Blu-ray (even tho it also cuts out the need for disk swapping) is not a big benefit to them. You also have to consider that a good percentage of gamers are kids/students who can't afford that much on their own.

For the media/entertainment junkie, it's definitely more than worth it tho.

SimbaDogg @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:51PM

wow...looks like you totally missed the boat.

for many people your argument means absolutely nothing. and these are the same people that say they dont care what it offers, they just want to play video games. if you tell a young kid "did you know the ps3 has a built in BR player?" they'll probably just say, i dont care, i just want to play video games. "free online play?" i dont care, i just want to play video games. a robust video store w/ free access "i really dont care, i just want to play video games"

this goes for just about any feature you can name. as much as people her on the Stiq will say, i love x feature, and y feature is great...theres a lot of people who simply dont care (especially parents of the aforementioned kids) who just want a console thats cheap to buy. when looking @ the entry level prices of the ps3 vs wii vs 360 its not surprise why a parent would say forget a ps3, i could get 2 360s for that price, or a wii and a lot of games. many people dont care what it costs to maintain or actually get running, but just that sticker shock u first see while comparing in store.

warlock7 @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:06PM

@SimbaDog

Well, you really need to look at the demographics. The majority of people buying and playing games are over 30 and your reasoning doesn't apply to them the same way. Bear in mind too that most of those people aren't buying for their kids to play, they're making purchases for themselves first and their kids second. If they're not, then they're not the real gamers in the house.

Jack_Jackington @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:24PM

sony rep said @ playstation blog:

"We have plans for a price cut but not in the near future. Near future as in during the summer. We want consumers to look at our product and not ignore it due to the price. We feel the price cut we have in mind is very reasonable and will continue to move us forward. The PlayStation 3 console is a wonderful machine and we want as many people as possible to own one."

Hxczuner (PSN i.d) @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:25PM

I only paid 400 (with shipping) for a 40g + a new 400g hdd. The problem is that people think walmart and bestbuy are the only options. No one looks for deals or anything but the sticker price.

People really make no sense at all

ch3lo_91 @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:30PM

To every developer: Please lower your games to $50. Kthxbai

chimaera9 @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:34PM

Ha, YEAH, exactly!!!!!

Reuben @ Jul 3rd 2009 2:01PM

I agree! If next generation games cost $70 then we're going to have a giant problem on our hands.

greg (peevmyster) @ Jul 3rd 2009 2:55PM

I agree completely. There are 20 million + of each console out in people's homes. If they want to sell more games, perhaps they should stop asking 60 bucks for a half assed game. Then they wonder why gamestop is making a killing on their games. Drop the price to 40-50 dollar range and people would be more willing to buy new games. There are few games that are worth 60 bucks.

kacex @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:20PM

That's the reason i mostly skip new games till they are around that price or even less... not buying used games of course!!
Please sony we want more greatest hits!!

STEVE @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:41PM

Hell yes lower the games to $50.00 dollars. I don't care if it cost more to make the "next generation" games.It cost more to make the PS3 than it did to make the PS2 so why rag on Sony to the lower the price you hypocrites!
I know this is off topic but why the hell are we paying $60.00 a game anyway??? There really is no good reason why to me. I mean a new PC game doesn't cost that!
So why are we being fucked over on these prices? If I have to pay $70.00 dollars a game for the next system then I will be giving up video games!
Sorry for the rant!!

Jacksons @ Jul 3rd 2009 5:50PM

Yep, very few 360/PS3 games I buy new because of this. Some games are well worth it, others I'll play through once and never again. Hardly worth $60.

bronz @ Jul 4th 2009 2:06PM

very good point my friend.

but at least tecmo was nice about it.

chimaera9 @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:32PM

I totally agree with the first two posters, and the way I see it, the PS3 is my ticket out of PC upgrades. I've totally stopped PC gaming in favor of the PS3, which is not only more enjoyable (huge TV, nice surround sound system, relaxing on the couch, etc.), but much, much more affordable. I don't understand how some gamers can spend 2k every year or so on a totally new computer so they can play the latest games, yet so many people are complaining about the price of the PS3. As Nick pointed out, you get far more for your money because this system will last for a long time, probably at least a decade of use if not longer.

Plus, it's a blu-ray player, and one that receives upgrades to functionality periodically as well! (Please upgrade to DTS-MA, Sony!) I mean, seriously, $400 is a steal for what this thing does. I know that's still a lot of money, but honestly, I respect Sony for putting out such top-quality products, and they deserve what they charge for it. At least with the PS3, I don't feel like they're asking too much for what I'm getting. The PSP Go, on the other hand, is an entirely different story...

Nick @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:35PM

I miss the days of $49.99 video games. Anyhow, the price cut is definitely coming but I don't understand the logic of "we want as many people as possible to own a PS3" yet they keep the price still incredibly high when compared to its competitors. I'll still give credit to the SCE execs since they know a hell of a lot more about the industry than I do, but I can't imagine a price cut would hurt them badly.

Copland @ Jul 3rd 2009 4:42PM

I think Sony wants to give PS3 a price them selves too.
But at this point its impossible, because currently, Sony loses money for selling PS3.
It just costs to much to manufacture right know.
Thats why they're working hard to making the PS3 slim I think.
To lower the manufacturing costs and make them able to cut the price for the PS3.

Mr.Tretton said that PS3 has its values for its current price.
Users who feel that way (including me), already have bought the PS3.
But users who feel that the PS3 costs to much, haven't bought it yet and if Sony wants to expand the install base they need to get hold of those users (who wants a price cut).

Value is important of course, but price cut is also important as you can see at the end of last year, Microsoft cut the price for XBox360 and sold alot in the holiday season in European territories.
Also the PS2 had a boost in sales too, by lowering the price.

Dan Davis @ Jul 3rd 2009 1:56PM

Dear Tecmo,

Stop making crap games and charging us $60 for them.

Love,

Your Customers

Eddie Vertigo @ Jul 3rd 2009 2:17PM

I'm sure Sony is waiting to drop the PS3 price this holiday season (and may even offer God of War III in a bundle).

Leish @ Jul 3rd 2009 2:27PM

Maybe Sony can make a deal with them - Sony drops the price of their console, and the developers give Sony the extra money it loses per console made.

Strnd @ Jul 3rd 2009 2:51PM

Well, here in Norway, new games for consoles costs 90$... And there is no rental service here, so it's either buy or not. And 90$ is too much for a few hours of entertainment. In contrast, a PS3 is a one-time investment lasting for many years, with lot's of features, games are just games. So developers can shut up about prices thank you. I have a PS3, but I don't have the money for more games.

And Sony can't cut the price when everybody else want to.. They are already loosing much money, and they can't slice the price before they are ready. I believe that Sony knows their economy better than us.
Slice the price on games, then we'll talk.

Ashitaka @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:17PM

Use the internet! I usually buy my games online new for little more than $40

kacex @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:23PM

I live in Ecuador and they cost that much here too... I buy them online they are way cheaper there :)

Strnd @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:35PM

Yeah, I use internet too, and you can really find some great deals on Amazon and Play.com.
But I guess there are MANY who is not shopping on internet, and I think Sony and the developers are loosing a lot of sales there. If people could buy games for about the same price in the store, a lot more people would buy.
Increased sales would make Activision stop bitchin' (although they don't deserve to many sales), and Sony might get enough money for a bigger price cut.

When a game costs 1/5 of a PS3, it's too expensive. A PS3 has a lot of features, and a lot of hardware in it, it actually costs to produce per unit. When a game is done, it's "done", they can afford to push the price down on the disc. I just don't believe "This little disc is worth 80$.".

But it may be just me feeling that way. The PS3 could be more expensive for what I care, if the games was cheaper.

DJBess @ Jul 3rd 2009 2:56PM

Maybe if they offered DOA, to push sony to lower the price.

kacex @ Jul 3rd 2009 3:22PM

Tecmo SKU bundle confirmed!!

j.howlett @ Jul 3rd 2009 4:21PM

i already have a ps3, so do alot of other people. a price cut would be good but if they put out games that are worth getting they could get sales from the current owners. i'm digging what i see of Quantum so far, sigma 2 is not really my thing but others like it.

ej6060 @ Jul 3rd 2009 6:05PM

I think Sony should reply "Stop Charging 60 For A Disc". Those software Developers Make there money and then some.

Dehshizknight @ Jul 3rd 2009 7:36PM

If you remember in the previous generation, first-party games were always $40 instead of $50. I wish they did that this time around lol. I'm sure a lot more people would buy the first-party exclusives then.

marcusfrommo @ Jul 3rd 2009 7:37PM

why did the editor say the both the 2 ps3 exclusives will be coming out this year? have you seen quantum? it's pretty sick, and on ign.com and i think i saw someone talking to the tecmo representative and said that game is set for release on christmas 2010. Home is broadening up with more accessories and clothes and spaces. the day of e3, the did an expansion at the ps store offering more shows, networks, anime, movies, and games. and speaking of games, ff7 was released on the day of e3. the final fantasy series goes up to 9 on the ps1, then 10 on the ps2. tomb raider goes up to 3 on the ps1, so there's quite a few games yet to be released at the ps store. unlike xbox's 120 gig harddive for 100 bucks which was selling for 200, no built in wi-fi, everything except wanting an extra controller, longer usb cord, or a bigger hard drive for the future maybe, you get just as much stuff as you would x box. i know youv'e heard this one, "x box game look better on their system over the ps3," well online, i've read somewhere that they programmers start with the xbox system first, then port it over the ps3. if you look at exclusives games you might see a diffrence. heavenly sword came out i think early in 2007 i think and i think that was considered a first generation ps3 title. if they follow up with that game that has just as much potential as the gow series. her's a second one, the xbox gets a lot of exclusives, well i have to give them credit for that, but the ps3 exclusives are coming. i think if you lower the price tag signifacantly, you'll comprimise all that.