Slashdot Mirror
Xbox for $99? Xbox 2 in 2005?
TimeForGuinness writes "CNN is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox may be on the verge of a substantial price cut, falling from $179 to $99 by Labor Day, and Microsoft will launch its next generation console in late 2005 - a year earlier than has been previously rumored. That would put the Xbox 2 on store shelves up to a full year before Sony's PlayStation 3."
Why not get a second hand one now? And give none of your money to Mikerowesoft.
Yeah so I can get an XBox for 99, the good games are still 50$......
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
So whatever you do, don't bet on Xbox dropping to $99 or seeing Xbox Next/2 in 2005. And don't complain that Microsoft lied to you when neither of these things happen.
This just speculation.
Schnapple
I seem to have heard a similar rumor about the price of the iPod mini being $99, and look how that turned out.
Microsoft is already selling consoles at a rather hefty loss, and there's only so much to be gained by selling them at an even bigger loss. Even Microsoft doesn't have bottomless pockets, and the problem with selling a product as a loss-leader is that the more you sell the worse your short-term financial hit is. Selling a product as a loss-leader assumes that the people who buy that product will buy additional services at a higher markup later.
The problem with moving the cost of an X-Box to $99 is that you're hitting a market demographic that's far less likely to spend the $$$ to get something like XBox Live or a large number of additional profit-gaining accessories.
Now, if Microsoft came out with some deal that you could buy an XBox for $99 if you commit to 6 months or a year of XBox Live, that might work. Elsewise don't be lining up at the store to get your $99 XBox...
Although Microsoft has money, I seriously doubt they'll try to do what Sega did. Primarily because it is a huge risk, and that seems to be the tone of the article. Pretty much, if they pulled an early release stunt it would either make them or break them. First off, with their next console they have to try and ensure that they are not in the red like they are with the xbox.
lower the xbox's price down to $99 will not necessarily make people go out and buy one. That's still $100, and the holiday season is over with.
Sega may not have been in as strong a financial situation as Microsoft, but the dreamcast was a great console. The only thing that really ruined it was the fact that it did not have solid piracy protection. Who's going to make games on a system that everybody can steal? Before that, we saw lots of great games on the Dreamcast.
The xbox's buzzfactor, I think is as high as it can go. While observing Microsoft's moves, I've noted that they've done PC like stuff for the console. So basically they did things such as gamespatches that had never been done before by companies such as Nintendo. Think about that 20 years 1988-2004, no patching games, and then Microsoft comes along and starts patching games that have major bugs (granted, online games don't count, but think morrowind...etc.)
was the article worth reading? sorta, its all speculation, and it states the obvious. Basically, if the rumors are true, and Microsoft releases early, then this could hurt them. Like i said before, the article is pessimistic on the idea of M$ releasing early.
IMHO, Microsoft will probably release around the same day and time as Sony to be safe. By putting their cards on the table early, it will give Sony plenty of time to respond. If they release around the same time, it will be more like a game of rock,paper, scissors (just hope they both choose scissors).
Yes, but the GameCube has already been at $99 for quite a while. Pretty much everyone who would buy one at that price has already bought it. It's not very likely that Microsoft will absorb many sales that Nintendo would have gotten.
I don't think so. Nintendo still has its own exclusive games that people want. In addition, it has the GBA which is still selling quite well. There will also be quite a few new RPGs for release on the Gamecube this year, all of which are exclusives. I don't really see this causing much of a problem for Nintendo, who definately has the market edge of Microsoft in Japan, and is still doing strong in the USA. Europe is Nintendo's only real weak area right now.
f ro mint=1
If Microsoft were to drop the price to $99, it would be purely to dethrone Nintendo from the "#2" position. Nintendo would probably retaliate with a great game pack-in or promo before dropping the price any more. The $99 price range is where the added hardware features of the XBox begin to matter a lot less. They are so cheap, most people would just buy both machines. In the end, it will be the games that matter for the number 2 position. Though the XBox does have "Live" and the wasted hard drive feature, it doesn't have the franchises that Nintendo has. All of the talk about XBox's games is "Halo this" and "Halo that." Halo alone cannot sustain a console. While people are awaiting Halo 2, I'll be playing Baten Kaitos, PSO 3, Chrystal Chronicles, and the Tales of Destiny games, Metal Gear Solid remake, Metriod Prime 2, All of which will never come out on the XBox.
Check out these games - most of which are exclusives.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/474/474953p1.html?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a cheap hardrive and cheap ram get you pretty close to 99$.
This is an example of the power of a monopoly trying to break into another market. There is NO way that a company could start out and keep losing tons of money like they're doing on the xbox. That's what's wrong with monopolies. They get so much income from selling windows xp pro (full version 449$CAN at futureshop.ca) and office Pro full (sells for 650$CAN at futureshop.ca) that they can keep losing until they make competition in an area go bankrupt. Then you start paying.
The xbox doesn't seem cheap when you realize you're paying for it when you buy software from Microsoft's monopoly areas. Same goes for IE, media player and all the little utilities included in the OS that used to be made by various companies. It's never free, you just pay elsewhere.
"Count on Microsoft to fuck that up."
Nintendo: NES, Super NES, Nintendo 64, Game Cube
Sega: Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast
Sony: PS1, PS2
MS: Xbox
You're right!!! Bastards!!
If(XBOX == $99) XBOX2 = backward compatible;
... They want to gain users. Sell the systems at a huge loss, to pump up the number of games sold. That's always been their strategy.
... all of their old games still work. Past ownership of games ... plus a percentage of users that are tied to their "XBOX Live" accounts will encourage this transition. By dropping the XBOX price to $99, they'll be signing up a legion of future potential customers that are more likely to buy the XBOX2 than the PS3. Anyway, that's my speculation.
Here's my logic
Now, Sell the XBOX2 with backward compatibility so the barrier to entry for new users isn't that large
Except that I think a majority of people in the console-buying demographic already have a hard drive (with a PC connected to it) and a DVD player (seeing as they can be had for $29 on their own now). Finally, the broadband adapter, good only for the console and requiring a separate connection, really isn't for the impulse-buy crowd. The features the XBox has don't really seem to be all that impressive anymore, and because the normal impulse buyer won't mod their XBox into a Linux media player and already have a DVD player, I don't see much of an advantage in getting an XBox for those features.
Like always with game consoles, it just comes down to the games- I want to play a lot of Gamecube games, but I don't really want to play many XBox games. Gamecube at $99 is a steal because you have things like Viewtiful Joe, Zelda, Metroid, Mario (Kart), etc...Honestly, somebody correct me if I am missing something, but I haven't seen even one must-buy game for the XBox since Panzer Dragoon Orta.
"Weren't microsoft selling these at a loss already?"
Do you really think component cost has been a constant all these years?
They may be selling at a loss, but dropping to $99 doesn't mean they're losing another $80 per unit.
"Derp de derp."
Is there anything that does Xbox for nearly the same? Yes, sorta, except it's not an Xbox, and doesn't have the exact same games.
I have no trouble giving MS cash for a good product. I love my sidewinder joystick. I love my MS USB IntellimousePro, much more than the logitech one that I threw to the side because I didn't like the way it felt.
Just because it's MS doesn't automatically mean it's not worth purchasing. Does that mean I automatically want all of their software? No.
Make your choices where it really counts. Some areas, MS is ALWAYS going to have competition. And guess what? They are starting to have competition in the SW dept too. If things had gone just a little different 20 years ago, we could have all been griping about Apple the same way we do about MS.
"Also if XBox couldn't beat the PS2 with a 2-year technical advantage and huge losses, how do they expect to beat the PS3 being 1 year behind?"
Man, I think I'm still whirling from all that spin you just put out. Let me get this straight, are you seriously suggesting that being first to market now is a disadvantage? That coming out first is being 1 year behind? And somehow I just know if MS delays the Xbox Next to 1 year after the PS3, you'll just be saying how does MS expect to beat PS3 while being beaten to the market again?
So is the only way for MS to act effectively to base all of their release dates strictly around their competitor's and come out at the exact same time or something? I know we hate MS and their Xbox here, but really....
Also if XBox couldn't beat the PS2 with a 2-year technical advantage and huge losses, how do they expect to beat the PS3 being 1 year behind? When the PS3 comes out, it will be faster, have more games and be cheaper than XBox2.
By this reasoning, Xbox would have been smashing the PS2 for the last two years. If a console launches early with must-own titles, it will find a base. Developers are asking for more power from the consoles (so they can, you know, do cooler things, so suckers will buy their games and they'll make money), so any developer that wants to get a jump start on the market will start developing for the next generation leader. If that's Microsoft, then so be it.
In not-so-kind words, your argument really makes no sense when it's paired with reality.
Also MS made the mistake of choosing PC-components which is the reason why XBox will always have a worse price/performance ratio than the Playstation.
Yes, because at the same price, the PS2 performs so much better than the Xbox. That is, if you like long load times and graphics that are no better than Dreamcast's.
I'm not convinced you know anything about gaming or the industry. It's a travesty your comment got modded up, because there isn't a single accurate piece to it.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
Dreamcast died because Sega, seeing the upcoming PS2, assumed their standard crisis mode, which is to roll over onto their backs and put a big red X on their stomach with a sign saying "STAB HERE".
Dreamcast's must-own titles came too late, and by that time, people decided to wait for the PS2. Its much-hyped online ability was never fully realized because Sega got lazy.
Dreamcast was killed by mismanagement, not by being first to market.
It's counterintutitive, but it does make anecdotal sense.
No, it really doesn't. GameBoy got clobbered by the GameGear, right? NES got ownz0red by Sega Master System, right? PlayStation didn't stand a chance against the newer and better N64, right?
Even more recently, the PS2 is really getting thumped by Xbox, huh?
It doesn't at all make any anecdotal sense, because there are fewer than a handful of situations where it's been true, and those have all been due to horrible mismanagement (generally by - surprise - Sega!).
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.