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
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.
xbox linux project
There are others too. Just do a search on google. But thats a good start. Not sure about NetBSD.
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!
Ahh, here we go:NetBSD on xbox
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).
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 $10 million on a production line, then your consoles are selling at a loss, then they break even, then you streamline the process and make profit, recouping costs etc...
So, loss initally, recoup costs, profit eventually. Welcome to the wonderful world of manufacturing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a cheap hardrive and cheap ram get you pretty close to 99$.
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
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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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
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.
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]