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."
Xbox - what's that all about? Is it good, or is it wack?
$99? For a hackable XBox? Oh my. I'd seriously go against my better judgement and consider getting one if it dropped that low. MythTV would be so nice on one.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Modded X2's in early 2006?
S
My first thought upon reading this was, "That's gonna hurt Nintendo, big time."
Nintendo, at least from what I can see, got their big sales kick this season from slashing down the price so that consumers would see it as the most affordable of the third generation consoles. However, that value proposition is going to be dead if the X-Box goes to the $100, or $120 range. I don't think most people have an issue with kicking in an extra $20 for DVD-playing, a hard drive, and a broadband adapter.
Hell, for that price, _I_ might get one.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
CNN is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox may be on the verge of a substantial price cut, falling from $179 to $99 by Labor Day.
I'm sorry, but given that I just got back from trudging through the snow, and practically getting frostbite on my face, I don't see how we're on the "verge" of labor day. On a day like this, it doesn't seem like we're even on the verge of spring, let alone the end of summer.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Yeah so I can get an XBox for 99, the good games are still 50$......
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
The Xbox will be out ahead of schedule just like Longhorn is going to be right on time. Oh, wait....
I personally hope the XBox 2 is fully backwards compatible, including XBox Live functionality.
I use my GBA and PS2 to play old games all the time. If the Gamecube let me, I'd be playing old N64 and Super Nintendo games, too.
$99 is widely known to be the magic number when it comes to the casual consumer and an impulse buy. Nintendo already beat them to that punch last year and during the Christmas season the GameCube sales numbers skyrocketed because of it. If Microsoft can accomplish the same thing, they'll make all the money they need to off of the additional software that they sell.
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
Would CNN also be so kind to announce that I *may be* on the verge of receiving a very large raise?
:)
I could really use the dough.
A Microsoft product, coming out EARLY?
Inconcievable!
Technoli
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 loved the original controller. Perfect size, could play with it for hours without cramping.
:(
The new one (S Controller) is smaller, not as comfortable for me.
SNES, PSX etc. controllers? Too small for my hands, I just freaking cramp if I play longer on them.
Too bad that they stopped producing the original controller
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
That would put the Xbox 2 on store shelves up to a full year before Sony's PlayStation 3.
And we all know that being the first next-gen console to market virtually guarantees success.
You probably shouldn't click this.
Given that the Xbox is based on hardware that is just a supped-up PC with mostly off the shelf components and Sony's is more custom, it's not big surprise that MS would be able to make it to market much faster. Wasn't the Xbox based on a 733 MHz P3 with a semi-custom Nvidia graphics chip? And I think the PS2 was a semi custom 128-bit DSP that handled pretty much everything (graphics + logic).
xbox linux project
There are others too. Just do a search on google. But thats a good start. Not sure about NetBSD.
That's the PSX - it's got a PS2 inside and basically a high capacity TiVO and a DVD recorder. A few other nice things.
--Moo.
I'm waiting for them to come free with a happy meal.
If they could be easily hacked into running Linux, it might be worth contacting Virginia Tech. Make the mac heads eat their words! 3rd biggest suppercomputer in the world for $108,900!
From the article:
/.
When Microsoft launched the Xbox in 2001 for $299, it reportedly lost $100 for every unit it sold.
I know this is
Of course you did not RTFA.
Free XBox, PS2
Ahh, here we go:NetBSD on xbox
Microsoft != Sega
Sega was hurting financially (and still is) when they cut their system price to try to sell through their remaining inventory. Sony FUD + lack of confidence inspired by their Saturn bomb + lack of marketing practically killed the company despite the 1 year lead and easy to develop for system.
Microsoft has plenty of cash and seems content to bleed it on X-Box to give X-Box 2 a market advantage. I wouldn't count Microsoft out of the game until *after* an X-Box 2 launch. And then, only if XB2 bombs.
-Redundancy Man strikes again!
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...
Wait, so if the X-box 2 is scheduled to come out sooner, like in 2005, and Halo 2 was supposed to come out late 2004, does this mean that Halo 2 might be pushed back to be released on the X-Box 2? I mean, I'm all for the new technology, but I want my Halo! Sooner the better I think.
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).
I say this for a simple reason...
Larger scale adoption of Linux.
Ok... So how does buying an XBox help Linux become more widely adopted.
Let's look at what motivate 99% of Computer hardware changes and upgrades.... games. No one needs a hardcore graphics card with an overclocked, liquid cooled CPU to run Word. The primary purpose for upgrading one's computer (OS and Hardware) tends to be for games. Linux simply does not have the same game base as Windows does (yes I know that this is changing... but there still is not enough).
Microsoft really wants to win with the XBox and the more money that we all sink into the XBox, vendors will have less motivation for targeting PCs for game development. Comparitivly, porting is the easy part (budget wise)... it's testing that kills your budget. With the PC platform, you have to take into account the wide range of systems out there, tech support for those different systems, etc. With the XBox, they have to worry about 1 platform and only 1.
The widespread adaptation of console games could be really good for Linux. IMHO, there would be less motivation to deal with Windows as it appears as though games are a big selling point of Windows. If Microsoft has tunnel vision with the XBox (most large companies tend to suffer from this), it will probably be too late before they realize that the XBox is cutting into their OS market share. Though games could be a bigger marketshare for MS.
So buy up those XBoxen and encourage MS in it's game console venture.
Upcoming Xbox2 Linux Project seeking sponser to front prize money...
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
Err... 2001 to 2005. Four year turn around. I've been buying a new console every year/two years, with only one gap of 5 years between my NES and my Sega Genesis, which was broken by buying no less than five system in two years.
I'm still waiting for the flying cars. I was promised flying cars. Where the hell are my flying cars!
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
A person I know was originally assigned to support engineering at the Guadalajara plant in 2001. I heard of production rates of 100,000 a week. 2 years later that person went to mainland china for the startup of the replacement xbox plant and later in 2003 he helped shut down the mexico plant, which had been in operation barely 2 years. Thats how they cut the costs.
"In other news, following the purchace of an Xbox console by Patrick Whitlock, Microsoft has announced that it will now begin selling the units at damn near half the price that Patrick has paid for his. When asked for a comment Mr. Whitlock only said, " this sucks""
Yes, but in a product's lifespan, manufacturing processes are streamlined (ever seen the inside of a 3G Playstation 1?), and cost falls dues to volume manufacture - initially tooling up a production line to make a new item costs a lot too.
But, a lot of these are one off costs that need to be recouped. You spend $10 million on a production line, then your consoles are selling at a loss, then they break even, then you streamline the process and make profit, recouping costs etc...
So, loss initally, recoup costs, profit eventually. Welcome to the wonderful world of manufacturing.
Nah, I'll wait til I see it at BigLots. Thats when we know for sure that this endeavour is circling the shark tank (to merge two phrases meant to describe utter failure: circling the drain and jumping the shark tank) Thats where I got my Bonefone!!
Last I saw this division (home entertainment) was hemorraging significant cash. Odds are they've lowered their losses, but the launch of Xbox 2 will undoubtably pick up the burnrate again. Maybe they won't throw away as much money on the roll-out and let word-of mouth do the work it should.
ASAIK the XBox is supposed to pave the way for homes to get all manner of services from Microsoft and partners, but I don't see much evidence of that. Game machines have been and continue to be boxes you play with until you get bored or the next best thing comes out and you relegate it to the garage, attic or eBay. If you're a typical obsessive gamer you sure aren't thinking about how wonderful this innovation can make your life by handling TV, email, web surfing, etc. for you. You'd rather be kicking ass.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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
That might have to do with the fact that programming well for the PS2 is such a complex and difficult task. The architecture is completely custom and proprietary, and you need all kinds of tricks and workarounds to "reach into the guts of the machine", as you put it.
Programming for the XBox, on the other hand, is an easy task for anyone who's used to programming PC games with DirectX (and that's a lot of people). So it's not that XBox games haven't gotten any better since launch date.. it's that they can't, because from the start they've been able to use the machine to its full potential. No horrendous learning curve.
It should also be noted that, IMHO, the XBox's launch-date graphics are far and above the PS2's graphics, even when PS2 devs "reach into the guts of the machine".
Now I'm going to have to sell my Apex DVD player!!!
C'mon 99$USD for an Xbox?? Most of my movies are in divx/xvid and only playable on a computer so this will be heavenly.
Candle burns its brightest in the dark
What most people don't understand about the Xbox is that it was adopted first and most widely by adults with actual paying jobs. The Gamecube played only "kids games" and everybody on the block had a PS2. So people who actually have the money to spend on these hobbies are the ones that initially bought them.
For this reason, Xbox has the highest number of software sold per system. I myself bought one of these with Halo the week it came out and it cost me almost $400 bucks. But I had the money and the job to buy the games I wanted and now I have nearly 20 games for the system. 20 games * $50 = $1000.
Obviously not every one of my games was $50 but that's still a lot of return money for the $100 they were losing on the system sell. I think MS has the advantage of having support from a large group of users who can afford to buy the games themselves rather than wait until mommy or daddy can pick one up for their birthday.
Add to that Xbox Live which is easily the better of the two online gaming entities and you've got a lot going for the Xbox. There's no way MS will let this system go by way of the Dreamcast, they have too much muscle and too much money already invested. The cases just aren't similar at all.
what?
I would trust Sony over Microsoft any day of the week/year/decade/etc to provide a level playing field for game developers. And THAT is what will generate great games. Not purchasing the game companies and forcing them to write games for their console and theirs only. ie, owning the game development industry for the console.
Look at the PC sector, Microsoft has been using it's ownership of the platform( the OS ) to gain more and more of the application development base.
Anybody over Microsoft at this point. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
In other news, Ed McMahon announces that frennzy may have already won $10,000,000!
Yes, I also think that. Also Microsoft has to be very careful not to piss off their PC-hardware partners, I think they changed the USB-connector for exactly that reason: PC-makers shouldn't be afraid it could be used as a PC-replacement.
Personally the price of the consoles is not the issue, its the quality of games for the consoles that I look at. I don't care what the price of the console is if the games suck then I won't buy it. When it comes to game quality I think the xbox has them all beat. Halo2,DoomIII,Fable,Ninja Gaiden, this is what I would look at if I were in the market to buy a console. Others don't even have the power to play these games.
MS just loves to accelerate the hardware upgrade cycle, don't they?
I played my Atari 2600 from 1981, when I got it, until 1988, when I finally got an NES. And in 1981, the console was already several years on the market. It finally quit working in 1990-91. I bet, if I still had it today, that I could probably repair it, too. Damn that was a solid machine.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
For 5 Million we can have a 50500 node beowulf cluster.
fire
A free XBox with every happy meal? How low will they go to elbow their way into the market?
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
"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."
I really dont see the need for another generation of consoles yet so soon. Could they have really made that many mistakes on the xbox1 that warrants a complete new system??
Come on, get serious. Lets see them concentrate on making good games rather than cramming the games full of high end 3D graphics.
A good game doesnt need to rely on quality of graphics to be good. I still play the various mario series (for snes/nes) and I think they are alot better than most of the junk thats come out recently.
I thought that Microsoft was selling their consoles below cost anyways. Why would it be profitable for them to get another system (which will probably be sold at cost as well) when have just finished getting the xbox1 out there?
Truth is that most people do not expect Microsoft to go to $99 dollars. In fact, a price drop to $129 would keep sales on par with 2003. But hey, $99 is a sexy number that Chris Morris wants to base his entire article on. Remember these are the same analysts that predicted a price drop on both the PS2 and the X-Box at Christmas. Neither one happened.
Microsoft, certainly, is in a much stronger position than Sega (in reference to the early Dreamcast launch). The Xbox's buzz factor is on the rise - and will soar higher if the company opts for a $99 price tag.
FINANCIALLY Microsoft is in stronger position then Sega was, otherwise not really. From a support and development perspective Sega had a lot of large third party companies (particularly Japanese third parties) supporting the Dreamcast. Additionally, the Xbox buzz factor isn't that "hot" either. The system is in a tight race in the US and Europe with Nintendo over second place in those markets (while a distant third worldwide) and is for all intents and purposes dead in the all important Japanese market. Microsoft is also taking a signficant loss on every Xbox system they sell which has not been recouped by game and licensed peripheral sales.
There are also questions around the gaming industry on the retail side of the industry about potentially inflated sales numbers already from Microsofts camp. Microsoft refurbishes their own used systems and resells them to retailers such as EBgames, Gamestop and GameCrazy. This differs from Nintendo and Sony's approach in which "refurbished" systems are handled by the companies that distribute them, not by the manufacturer. Former Microsoft reps have leaked the word out that Microsoft was counting refurb systems sales as new sales until recently, meaning that many Xbox systems were listed as being sold twice.
There are also questions about inflated Xbox live numbers as many of the Xbox live subscribers are on free subscriptions that come with software rather then paying subscribers.
With regards to the Xbox 2/next coming out in 2005, I believe that is in fact a possibility. But the Xbox being dropped to 99.99 in the imminent future (or before Sony does so) seems highly unlikely. Microsoft is already taking a much bigger loss on their hardware then Sony. It's hard to imagine them running up an even deeper deficeit merely to move into a distant second place in the US and Europe.
99$ is great, I just picked up xbox #2 for 170. I have a Box running my fave PVR program stashed in a corner. I am working on populating each room in my house with Modded Xboxs running Xbox Media Center http://www.xboxmediacenter.com to access those recorded shows on a networked share. With the DVD remote thrown in the mix, it's a beauty of a setup. And that's not including the full Mame, N64, SNES, and genesis roms. Hate MS all you want, but xbox has been a great machine.
"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.
Doesn't seem like anything's changing here folks....
:
:
:
:
Nintendo
NES : 1985
SuperNES : 1991
N64 : 1996
Game Cube : 2001
Avg Time Bet Releases : 5.3 years.
Sega
Master System : 1986
Genesis : 1989
Saturn : 1995
Dreamcast : 1998
Avg Time Bet. Releases : 4 years
Sony
PS1 : 1995
PS2 : 2000
PS3 : 2006 (projected)
Avg Time Bet. Releases : ~5 years
MS
XBox : 2001
XBox 2 : 2005 (projected)
Avg Time Bet. Releases : 4 years
It isn't illegal because the gaming market isn't a monopoly. MS is trying to break into the market, not keep people out.
Now then, if Sony dropped their prices way below MS and the Nintendo, that may be a different story.
Also, no company ever has a business model based on losing money. Never. Ever. When a company expands into a new market, it is expected that the market will not be profitable for X number of years. Even when Sony and Nintendo started out, they lost money in the beginning. There is a lot of over-head related to starting a new division / company / market.
The strategy is always that you reduce your losses every year to meet your goal of being profitable in the future. That being said, if you loose too much money, it is better to get out, though when you're MS that is a mute point.
In my experience it is general practice to take big losses to begin with so you can establish a customer base. Ya know, get some loyalty. Then once you have a market you are able to run with it.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
wtf?
Xbox is superior to the Ps2 in almost every way!
And that's just the way it is.
Playstation graphics are dated, all the games use the same crap engines they used from the PS. The only game to really show off the Ps2 Graphics is Ratchet and Clank. All the games just look the same. Role playing games are the PS2's only saving grace.
The PS/PS2 Controller is horrible when compared to Xbox\Cube
The Online Play is severely lacking compared to Xbox Live. Yeah, live costs money, but it beats waiting 20 minutes to find a decent socom server.
Let us not forget Sony Quality. As a owner of a "model 3001" unit, when it crapped out, I vowed not to buy another playstation 2. I plunked down 350 bucks for the damn thing about 4 months when it came out, and the thing is dead, D-E-A-D. The graphics chip fried on the board. Plus PS2 systems are still 179... for what? The PS2 is a legacy system, and it was from the Get-Go.
The Xbox and Cube are faster (seemingly) more capable hardware and better game support. The Game Cube is only 99 bucks! I mean DAMN its Nintendo, that means it's a tank. My Super Nintendo, N64, and Playstation still work fine, how come my PS2 cant?
The only reason I miss having a ps2 is because I didn't get to finish Socom2 before the damn thing died.
I will get one when they become like the PSone and sell for 50 bucks.
Till then F*ck Sony. I wont buy crap hardware, great way to reward consumers who initially bought your product.
And for the Xbox not being the same hardware quality as the ps2? What the hell are you smokeing? If my Xbox died, I would pay 179 for it again, at least the system does things that are worth the price, the PS2 does nothing to deserve 179 for it's sorry @$$.
The Cube has better graphics and play control then both oh them but only costs 99 bucks.. go figure.. ( i know, know ethernet, no hard drive)
Metriod Prime kicks ass though.
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.
XBox has the highest number of software sold with the system .. because it has the highest number of games that come bundled along with every system purchased.
But anyway, if your theories above were true, then how do you explain the yearly billion dollar losses of the MSFT Home division? If all these adults are buying xbox and PS2 games, then why is Nintendo the only company who's actually pulling in serious cash?
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
No, when the PS2 was released nobody knew about XBox and everybody was buying PS2s.
Please, stop. This is demonstrably false. Xbox was officially announced in March of 2000, specs and all. PlayStation 2 shipped in North America in October of 2000.
Of course I was talking about production prices, not retail prices.
What? Those matter how? The consumer doesn't care how much it costs the company to make the console. If price/performance matters, then the price is what the consumer pays and the performance is what the consumer sees. Anything that's behind the scenes is not even taken into consideration.
Neither Sony nor Microsoft have ever publicly disclosed how much each unit costs to produce. Surely the PS2 is cheaper for Sony than the Xbox is for Microsoft, but the Xbox includes a lot more. It doesn't really matter, however, because both sell at the exact same price.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
I find myself wondering why this is being taken so seriously. Looking at the URL and the article itself makes it more than obvious this is an Opinion Article. Nothing more than a commentary from a writer who has shown his own lack of understanding on how the vide game market works. His only evidence for this immense price-drop comes from an analyst. Last time I checked analysts are not Gods and seem to be more often wrong then right. But of course, anyone who is in the business of predicting an unpredictable future could you expect anything less? This goes back to the old adage, just 'cause it's posted online don't make it anymore true. Of course, I don't know any better it could happen. But this is hardly much to go on.
Something intelligent here.
However, I don't think microsoft is ever going to see the savings in integrated manufacturing that Sony has.
The reason is quite simple. Inside a PS2, Sony owns everything. The emotion engine, the audio hardware, the mpeg decoder, everything. So, when it decides to put the video silicon and the emotion chip silicon on the same die, there are not any problems. Microsoft on the other hand has to contend with all these disperent companies who wouldn't be too keen to letting each other have a look at the insides of their hardware...
Also, unless Microsoft has set up its own fab plant, Intel is running a line of celerons just for Xboxes. Likewise, Nvidia has to put manufacturing capacity aside to make video cards for Xboxes. I don't see either of those companies negoiating a lower contract to continue to build an antiquated product...
Sony has none of those problems. In fact it could be argued that it goes the otherway for Sony. As Sony works to create a more integrated PS2, that know how gets used to integrate other products in the Sony line and visa versa.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
As the other 2 people who responded to your comments already said, by your logic Xbox1 would be the best selling console right now. Playstation2 graphics SUCK compared to Xbox. The only reason PS2 sold so well is because it came out a year before Xbox and Nintendo. On a performance chart PS2 comes in dead last of the 3.
When the PS3 comes out, it will be faster, have more games and be cheaper than XBox2
It may be faster but probably only slightly. It wont have more games because Xbox2 will have been out for a year by the time PS3 comes out. It wont be cheaper because it will have just come out. The longer something is out the cheaper it gets. Newer products DO NOT COST LESS!!!
Also MS made the mistake of choosing PC-components...
The only PC component that costs so much in Xbox is the hard drive. So your comment indicating multiple PC components drive up the cost show you dont know what your talking about. Only 1 PC component is relitivly expensive for console systems.
Also XBox faces the constant danger of being discontinued when the Office and Windows profits no longer grow,
Ok, like I said, people usually dont like Microsoft here, but Windows and Office will continue to garner HUGE profits for Microsoft for decades to come.
Doe your home room room teacher know your looking at Slashdot while your at school?
Microsoft should buy Rockstar, then sit back and watch Sony die. I think Sony owes a lot of their marketshare with the PS2 to haveing GTA3 exclusive for over a year.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Why doesn't Microsoft just give the Xbox away? If all they are after is market-share, that's a sure way to guarantee the number one spot in the console wars. Sure they'll lose more money, but they've been losing money on this console since it's launch.
Wrong, bundled games don't count towards the "software sold with system" number that Microsoft always touts, since the user is not actually buying them, but getting them for free. Instead, it refers to the actual $50 spent for each additional game at the time of the console purchase. In my case, that would have been 3 - Project Gotham Racing, Dead or Alive, and of course Halo.
I also don't know where you got your "highest number of games bundled with any system" notion. It originally was not bundled with any games, and at one point or another had either 1 or 2 games bundled with it, which is not that high. If I were to recommend a bundle, the Sega GT Racer and Jet Set Radio seems to be the best.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
That is not entirely true of Sony. Sony works with IBM, Toshiba, and a whole lot of other companies to produce PS systems. The only difference between Sony and MS is that Sony has partners where as MS has contractors. There are subtle differences between these two. In a partnership everyone works for the good of the product because they have vested interest in its successes. While this might seem true of contract work, look closer and you will have the mess you have with MS and nVidia. MS is a control freak and there is no such thing as partnership with them. You are in essence their minion who is supposed to do what they damn well please or else.
If you get too close to MS you will either get bought out or get burned like Orange/Phone mess.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Microsoft on the other hand has to contend with all these disperent companies who wouldn't be too keen to letting each other have a look at the insides of their hardware...
Fortunately for Microsoft, they're not dealing with as many companies as people seem to think they are. Sure, nVidia and Intel aren't going to swap specs so that one or the other can build an integrated CPU/GPU, but they don't really need to in order for Microsoft to save money, because Microsoft would still be paying Intel and nVidia the same amount. In fact, nVidia claimed that they were losing money on the XBox because of some problems where Microsoft wasn't buying parts from them as quickly as they had scheduled production.
Also, unless Microsoft has set up its own fab plant, Intel is running a line of celerons just for Xboxes. Likewise, Nvidia has to put manufacturing capacity aside to make video cards for Xboxes. I don't see either of those companies negoiating a lower contract to continue to build an antiquated product...
nVidia and Intel both have fixed price contracts as far as I know, but Microsoft doesn't pay for a part until it's delivered to them. nVidia's building the entire motherboard, GPU, and sound processor, too, not just the video card. nVidia then turned around and leveraged the technology for the GeForce 3 line and the nForce line, which is pretty much the only way they made any money from the deal. The Intel chip is a special line anyway, as it's been modified to the specs MS and nVidia came up with to optimize performance for games, so Intel can't just shovel whatever chips they didn't ship from that era over to MS, either.
In the end, though, MS has come up with ways to reduce the cost on the assembly end. They still have the problem of Intel and nVidia being at fairly fixed prices, but they may have learned their lesson on that one. Notice that the official releases regarding the deal with IBM on the next XBox don't mention IBM actually producing chips, but rather Microsoft licensing technology. MS is currently limited in how much they can cut their costs, and they still will be in the future because they are licensing technology, but not to the extent they are now as they are buying hardware (at fixed cost afaik).
Sony has none of those problems. In fact it could be argued that it goes the otherway for Sony. As Sony works to create a more integrated PS2, that know how gets used to integrate other products in the Sony line and visa versa.
This is true, but it still costs Sony money to change their production lines for the updated (cheaper) chips. They have to weigh the costs against the gains, and I'm sure they only change the chips when they stand to make significant amounts of money off of it. At the same time, this whole concept is what allowed them to do PS1 compatibility, and now that they've reduced the PS2 functions outside the PS1 chip to a single chip, they can possibly do it again on the PS3 (and are currently using the single-chip design in the PSX afaik). On the other hand, there have been rumours that the next XBox may have to emulate the XBox hardware in order to successfully play XBox games. While this would result in lower hardware costs, to some degree, it would also result in a significant investment on the front end to produce the emulation.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
This is horrible for us not-so-rich gamers. I still havent' been able to get enough money together to get an xbox and MS is already threatening to release an Xbox2. The life of a game console must be a lot longer than this if you want to get your money out of it. Games for the Xbox1 haven't even began to use all of the potential of the console. It takes the game-making industry years to get to where they can quickly produce great games that use all of the potential of a console. If PS2 would have been released like this, so soon after PS1, hundreds and thousands of great PS1 games would never had existed. MS needs to give game makers A LOT more time and more resources to produce Xbox games before they try to release a new version. That is unless Xbox2 is very similar and game makers can use all of their Xbox1 knowledge for building Xbox2 games and that the Xbox is backwards compatible with the Xbox1. In this case an Xbox2 wouldn't suck. But, its Microsoft. They don't know what the hell gaming is.
Well, since all consoles will be backwards-compatible ...
As the other poster noticed, you really don't keep up, do you? According to what we currently know about Xbox 2, "backwards compatibility is out of the question". Thanks for playing.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
You can purchase any Xbox failed part, and get lots of FAQs on how to do repairs, at this site: http://www.llamma.com/xbox/ And a few specific articles: http://llamma.com/xbox/Repairs/xbox_dvd_repair.htm
They also sell all the parts, so you can replace your defective DVD drive with a non-defective one, and since you're out of warranty, no one will stop you.
I know the whole "I have to pay MS hundreds of dollars to fix my unit!" cry is an easy one to make, but it's untrue if you do a little digging around.
Does the average person have a TV that displays more resolution than NTSC yet? How much more powerful can the XBOX 2 system be without people upgrading their TV's and sound systems to take advantage of it?
Other than new games, how can they justify to the consumer that this new system is better?