$1200 Cheap!

Pinky3 writes: "The LA Times is reporting that Microsoft is encouraging retailers to bundle Microsoft games with each XBox. "Beginning next month, many retailers will be requiring customers to pay from $499 to as much as $1,200 to reserve an Xbox console that, like it or not, will come bundled with games, peripherals and warranties. The reason: Microsoft will provide additional marketing money to merchants that agree to include the software giant's games in their bundles. That's because Microsoft's games carry higher profit margins for the Redmond, Wash., company than those published by third-party companies such as Activision Inc. and Electronic Arts Inc.""

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't Like It That Way? Don't Buy It That Way?

[Drestin]

I'm struggling to think of what else to write... If you don't want to buy the bundle then ... DON'T! Get the unbundled version. Is this that difficult to comprehend? Every other game maker creates bundles which are cheaper than all the components seperately -- why single out MS for this behavi- oh, I forgot, it's MS.

Nothing New

[szcx]

Jesus, Michael. Scraping the bottom of the barrel for Microsoft bashing articles aren't you?

Console manufacturers have been doing this for years. Nintendo did this most recently with the Gameboy Advanced. It's Standard Operating Procedure. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not like you don't have options.

Deja Vu all over again

[generic-man]

On a whim a few weeks ago, I decided to shop around for a Game Boy Advance. Walking around in my local mall, I noticed a bunch of stores had signage up promoting the Advance, but were out of stock. Finally, the EBX had a couple of actual product boxes on display.

Me: Are those Game Boy Advance boxes for real, or are they just boxes?
Salesperson: (very smug) Yes, they're real.
Me: How much?
Salesperson: $200 and up.
Me: (staggered) I'm sorry, what?
Salesperson: Yup. $90 for the Game Boy, plus two games of your choice, plus our accessory kit, plus a two-year extended warranty.
Me: Can I just buy the Game Boy for $90?
Salesperson: No. It's our special package deal.

The following day, I went to a local non-chain place, and they had plenty of Game Boys in stock. I picked one up for $100, no strings attached. Nintendo may not have mandated these "bundles," but just about every chain store latched on.

Don't buy bundles, unless you like to get stuck with all sorts of stuff you don't want.

Re:Deja Vu all over again

[Paul Komarek]

I agree with your assessment that people shouldn't buy things they don't want. However, it oversimplifies reality in many cases. Suppose you want Windows but don't want IE. Good luck. While we don't have a "right" to have Windows, many people find owning a license to operate Windows a necessity. The only reason I can write this without developing ulcers is that I'm not among this group of people.

As for bundling, Microsoft does have a monopoly in the operating systems market (the Supreme Court may reverse this, but it seems unlikely at best). Under United States law, that status puts restrictions on their conduct with respect to the operating systems market (properly defined for PCs, yadda, yadda, yadda). I don't think this XBox bundling issue is relevant, because 1) The XBox isn't really part of the operating systems market in question, no matter what OS it is running, and 2) MS isn't doing the bundling themselves.

However, I think there is an interesting point to be made about an acute failure of capitalism illustrated in this example. Those with the most money are most able to change pulic opinion about their products and competitors' products. I don't believe Adam Smith's "The Invisible Hand" took proper account of this. The closest hint comes from this excerpt:

"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

The question then arises, what happens to a person that intentionally subvert public interest for his or her own gain? It is difficult to argue that Corporate America has the public's best interest at heart -- but this wouldn't bother Adam Smith. What I hope would bother Adam Smith is that many companies intentionally act against their customers interests. For example, recall the quote "The customer is the enemy" from the Arthur Daniels Midland case a few years back.

Interestingly, Adam Smith did have something to say about those who use their business deliberately to help public interest:

"I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

So should Microsoft cut the "customers' best interest" crap that they want us to believe, and admit they don't care? Or should the voluntarily put themselves into Adam Smith's catagory of "those who affected to trade for the public good"?

Coming back to my original statement, I believe Adam Smith was grossly naive about how a real market works, where people by stuff because they're told to buy it. After all, we're social creatures trying to harmonize with and improve society. We granted Microsoft the right to do business in our country and in the State of Washington, and I don't think that, as a society, we're reaping rewards proportionate to the privileges granted. Of course no one can say with certainty what things would have been like without Microsoft. My opinion is that we might have gained quality and *useful* innovation at the expense of some progress. And since we'll be here until the cows come home, I don't mind losing a little bit of progress.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Did you expect any differently?

[disc-chord]

How is it anti-competitive... when the compition did this 12 years ago?

Most slashdotters wouldn't have been around for this so let me give ya'll a history lesson...

When the NES originally came out in the US it was bundled with Super Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt... (two Nintendo produced games)and peripherals (the duck hunter gun) which jacked up the price to cover their loss on hardware. Later a stipped down unbundled package was offered at $50-75 cheaper.

This has happened with every single console to date... the only reason you all are bitching is because it's r33t to bash MicroSoft.

Hello? You Work For Microsoft Now

[PRickard]

We're introducing this awesome new gaming platform, it's gonna be all the rage this fall. Everybody will be buying our console, and you can port your existing DreamCast and Windows games over to it easily. We're going to put Nintendo and Sony out of business, so don't even bother making a version for their consoles anymore.

Oh, and I forgot to mention... We're going to buy up half your competitors (at least 5 in the last 2 years), then release new versions of their well-known old titles (Marathon, MechWarrior, etc.) for our new console and bundle those with it at a "discount" so you can't hope to compete with us. Have a nice day.

Now the console game publishers can find out how it feels to be a Microsoft developer. The Behemoth is doing to this industry what it keeps doing to its Windows patners - promising them the world and then slowly screwing them over by bundling competing products and eating away at their market. Why can't one of these companies figure this stuff out?

``Loyal XBox fans''

[Mike Hicks]

I don't understand how there can be ``Loyal XBox fans'' when the console hasn't even been released.. What magic pixie dust does Microsoft have in order to get so many people hyped up about their console (which they announced two years in advance of release -- something many companies are not allowed to do)

Re:$1200 is.....MS omnipotent, Don't Think So

[darkPHi3er]

"MS is the type of company who as of right now probably knows within +/- 5% what the demand is, what the poor/average/rich person will pay for it, what the average 'early' adopter will pay for it, and what the average late adopter will pay for it."

WHOA! Duude...here are some "ad hoc" "nonofficial" numbers according to a # of my friends up in Rancho Redmond...BEWARE: YMMV...

1. MS' projected demand for W2K is off by around 30%, much/most of this NOT accounted for by the demand inversion

2. MS' projected demand for W/ME was supposedly off by between 30%-40%, and a large factor that (along with a record number of non-projected support problems) led to its being pulled as part of the Official "Upgrade Path"

3. Deployment of AD is ***OVER*** 50% off projection, and is particularly poor with some of MS' historical "early adopters" and "key partners"

4. Demand for the new WinCe is also reportedly well below projection, though no one's mentioned to me a credible sounding number

5. And let's not forget O2K, where demand is alleged 30%-40% below Worst Case, and by rumour, His Billness and His Steveness got "down and dirty" on the O2K marketing team????

While I have no way of certifying the above numbers, the fact is that MS spokesgeeks have acknowledged the above statements without having provided quantities.

you seem to belong to the "MS is God!" School.

MS has historically (like ALL Tech Companies) always overstated intial demand....Windows95 was the one exception to that, and MS ***HASN'T HAD*** a hit like that since, God, what year was W ***95*** again???...though i've had senior Softies tell me that "for sure" W2K was gonna be...it wasn't, it's been the most disappointing Office release in some time..

"I don't expect MS to make the same low-supply mistakes as Sony"

BONUS ROUND: many industry insiders speculated that the PS2 shortage could have been planned/intentional "market manipulation" by Sony trying to enhance both mid-term PS2 demand and beat the amazing amount of media buzz that "Dreamcast" rec'd...some think it could have also been a way to "Pump Prime" the marker in America and freeze Nintendo/Dreamcast sales for a few months????...