Slashdot Mirror
Console Pricing Economics
Red Mercury writes "Red Mercury has just released a new installment of Monday Morning CEO. Today's topic: XBox Economics. The article explains some of the myths and realities about game console pricing, how the current price war is playing out, why Sony is winning, and why Microsoft is losing." Interesting piece about all the recent console price cuts.
at $10 a month for internet gaming on the X-Box.
0 21 1
See the earlier slashdot story
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/20/051
It's not the razors or the blades; it's the shaving cream!
The only problem with that line of reasoning is the fact that computer hardware will continue to advance, while the XBox is a static platform.
Most PC games out today don't support 5 year old hardware. 5 years ago, almost no games required a hardware graphics accelerator. Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't.
So, 4-5 years down the line, M$ won't be able to dump games to the XB because the technology will be too dated.
Just my $2/100.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
No I don't have any three of the consoles yet, but the choice of which to purchase is getting harder and harder...
Eddy.WriteLinux.Com
To put the numbers in perspective... there have been 20 million Sony Playstation 2's sold since its launch. This article claims it costs Microsoft $320 to make an Xbox.
Microsoft has $40 billion in cash. That's not capital tied up in equipment, that's money in the bank. This means that, if Microsoft decided to contact every PS2 owner around the world, everyone who has bought a PS2 in the last three years, buy them a free Xbox, and send it to them with free shipping... they would be left with only $34 billion.
Microsoft could then buy a controlling interest in Sony Corporation for $26 billion, and then pay retail for a $50 free game for every child in America (from newborn infants up to the 17-year-olds). After doing all that, Microsoft would still have over four billion dollars in cash reserves.
I was never sure about how much a console was but I always expected that Sony and Nintendo were always making a profit, even razor thin ones. Always have and always will. In fact the only time when you can get away with "selling at a loss" is when you *creapy organ music* have a monopoly...
I laughed at the accusations back when N64 and PS2 were scarce on shelves and both Nintendo and Sony where causually accused of shorting supply to create demand and future sales. What idiot in the retail market wants to sell something tomorrow where they might make a profit when they can sell it today and definately make a profit? Back then a PS2 would sell for $300 scarce as it would $300 plentiful. There is no margin to play with in the retail to speculate on so they don't do it. Same thing with what is going on now with XBox's woes. Gambling to turn a profit later in retail products often gets you squashed...
Lets see...other companies that bought into the "sell the hardware cheap, hook them in software" idea.
Off the top of my head, I remember seeing stuff from sources that suggested that SGI was selling Indy workstations and later O2 at a loss. Look where SGI is now unlike Sun and IBM who have stated policies about not giving away hardware just to get people to write software. As mentioned Sega bought into the idea with the Dreamcast and nearly crushed them. Luckily for them someone recognized where most of the money was bleeding from and cut it off.
Selling hardware at a loss just isn't a sound strategy. That is a highly dubious way to invest a company's capitial. So given that Sony invested $1B in actual, real hardware investments over MS just tossing units out the door trying to pay people to buy, which is a sound strategy?
I thought this article brought up two very interesting points which oddly enough I was discussing this AM with my wife after we learned of the GC pricedrop (we have a PS2 and "classic" PSX):
:).
.
* Production control
* Platform Longevity
When talking about hardware, it's all about controlling production and cutting costs whenever possbile. Since Sony controls the production, any increased efficiencies they realize in their PS2 chip fabs directly impact their profit margins. However, on XBOX, if Intel/NVidia become more efficient in creating XBOX components, they pocket the $$$.
In addition, and in the spirit of MS' campaign for "innovation", Sony is taking it to the poor XBOX team, which obviously isn't in this for the long run. Nothing against Blackley and crew, but Sony plays consumer electronics for keeps, has teams dedicated to multiple PS product generation, and are showing it with how they control manufacturing process where, for Sony, a penny saved on costs is a penny Sony keeps (don't think Sony is selling the PSOne for a loss @$49USD
In addition to controlling its own production, Sony obviously employs a number of highly-talented hardware engineers (and yes, some of the Emotion Engine peeps belong to Toshiba) dedicated to creating mind-expanding and truly innovative hardware for the consumer market which will age gracefully and provide high-performance for years to come (For those who insist on comparing XBOX/PS2 from a MHz/RAM standpoint, see the ArsTechnica article on the Emotion Engine). PS2 has lots of room to grow.
Sony knows consoles aren't like PCs: the majority of buyers keep the consoles much longer than a PC and periodically purchase additional software titles. When the next round of the Console Wars commences, you know Sony will be selling the PS2 around $99 . . . and it will still be making a profit on each unit. Will Intel still be making the P3? What about NVidia . .
Point one: the BIOS is distributed over several chips, not contained in one EEPROM.
Point two: the operating system itself is encrypted with strong crypto. It uses a species of crypto related to the EFS encryption infrastructure first released in Windows 2000. Since the OS is in ROM and thoroughly encrypted kiss the thought of booting the XBox with Linux goodbye.
Point three: their DVD-ROM has a reversable motor. XBox game DVDs spin BACKWARDS, and the content starts at the second layer.
Point four: Even the peripherals are non-standard. The XBox implementation of USB means that plain-jane USB periphs WILL NOT WORK with the XBox. There will be a keyboard and mouse for the XBox when hell freezes over.
Microsoft made DAMN SURE the XBox would not end up like the IOpener.
The better chance to get PCs to the 3rd World is the VIA Eden Platform. There are already products using the Eden Platform out, and more are on the way. VIA might not attract the power users (The nForce+Athlon is more appropriate for them) but they will 0wn China with this platform.
And no, not every poor fsck can afford a TV. Some can't even afford a bowl of rice. In places like this, technology is the least of the populace's worries.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Once Windows is the embedded OS in a Microsoft-controlled hardware product, many good things (for Microsoft) happen:
There is no threat from any other OS.
There is no cry of "Unfair middleware bundling!"
There is no issue of different licenses for different hardware makers, or of rogue hardware makers loading a non-M$ approved desktop.
Everyone who writes software for the box has to pay Microsoft a royalty -- guess what this does to the Free Software folks?
Microsoft can provide ever-greater improvements just by re-flashing the ROM via your (required) Internet connection (don't have one? sign here for MSN for just $5/month more than you're paying now).
Oh, did I mention manditory software subscriptions?
Want more storage space? We'll rent you more for a slightly higher subscription (no hardware upgrade needed)
This this is all a pipe dream? Think nobody will buy this? Think again.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
This is one of those articles that takes present strategy (as viewed from the outside looking in) and runs it into the future.
The whole article assumes that MS will never fab it's own chips into an Xbox... that might not be entirely true.
BOSTON SUCKS!