Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox for $99? Xbox 2 in 2005?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the shaking-things-up dept.

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."

33 of 738 comments (clear)

  1. $99!?!? by Your_Mom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $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
    1. Re:$99!?!? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 5, Informative
      Would somebody mind posting a summary of what it takes to turn an Xbox into a standalone PVR, from modding to installation, etc.?

      I don't think anyone is using it as a standalone PVR (does it even have PCI slots?). They're using them as a MythTV frontend box. The actual encoding and storage is handled by a seperate backend box (which can be conveniently hidden away in a basement or closet so it can be noisy and not bother you). All the communications between them is just over a network connection. You can of course have a frontend on the same box as the backend though too and communicate over the loopback interface.

    2. Re:$99!?!? by FreakyGeeky · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can hack any version of the XBOX with a hardware modchip, regardless of whether Live 2.0 is installed. This applies to all versions: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and the 1.5.

      I will agree that the software exploits won't work with Live 2.0. However, most XBOX hackers chip their boxes anyway.

      See www.teamxecuter.com for more information.

    3. Re:$99!?!? by RailGunner · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Buying an X-box technically doesn't give MS any money.

      This is a fallacy that many here on Slashdot seem to repeat far more often then they should. If you buy an X-Box - you are still sending MS money - they lose money on the sale based on the cost to produce the unit, but it you didn't buy one MS would lose THAT MUCH MORE money.

      It's really simple - you want Microsoft to lose money? Then don't buy *any* Microsoft products. That means Windows Operating Systems, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Sidewinders / Mice, any game published by MS (FreeLancer, Halo, etc.), or anything else released or produced by Microsoft.

    4. Re:$99!?!? by Isca · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you like a Microsoft Product, look for other products to see if there is one that does nearly the same.

      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.

  2. So... by skink1100 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Modded X2's in early 2006?

    S

  3. Ouch by Erwos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Verge? by Schlemphfer · · Score: 4, Funny
    From the summary:

    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?
  5. Forget cheap consoles..... by big-giant-head · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah so I can get an XBox for 99, the good games are still 50$......

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
    1. Re:Forget cheap consoles..... by h0mer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The biggest thing a game manufacturer could do would be to drop their release prices from 50 to 40 dollars in the US market. They'd sell so many more to make up for lost profit that the end result would be amazing.

      Let's do some simple math, boys and girls!
      The $50 price point is made by the retailer, the wholesale cost per game is around $45. So let's assume that $35 will be the new amount that's going to the publisher.

      Let's say that I have a moderately successful game that sells 100,000 copies. Therefore:

      100,000 * 45 = $4,500,000
      100,000 * 35 = $3,500,000

      That leaves a million dollar gap between the two price points. To make up that deficit by volume, you would need to sell 28,500 more copies, or 28.5%.

      Sony has been putting their 1st-party (technically 2nd-party) games out at $39.99, and I don't see them flying off the shelves any faster than games priced at $49.99.

      Lower prices makes sense for smaller games, like Contra: Shattered Soldier or anything that doesn't have mass appeal. The price increases the chance of someone buying it. For GTA or Zelda or anything like that, the people who want it are going to buy it. The $10 difference isn't going to double sales of it or anything ludicrous like that.

      --


      I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
  6. Sure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Xbox will be out ahead of schedule just like Longhorn is going to be right on time. Oh, wait....

  7. Backwards Compatibility by JoeFaust · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. A wise move by magicsquid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $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
    1. Re:A wise move by Bluesman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Definitely. I'm a casual gamer, and the reason I own a gamecube is because of the zelda bundle for $99. I'm sure I'm typical of the Christmas crowd.

      I'm having a lot more fun with it than I thought I would, however. I might jump in early on the next generation...but I can't see myself spending substantially more on a game system than $100-150.

      The biggest selling point for the Xbox I think is the hard drive, so you don't have to waste time and money on memory cards. This is one of the hidden costs the casual gamers don't think about, so now I'd lean toward a hard drive based system in the future.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  9. Shilling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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. :)

  10. Wait a minute... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Funny

    A Microsoft product, coming out EARLY?

    Inconcievable!

    --

    Technoli
  11. Analyst Guesses by Schnapple · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Guys, these are guesses done by Analysts, they're not based off of anything Microsoft has said for a fact. The analysts base it off of what Microsoft might do, not off of what might be intelligent in the marketplace.

    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

  12. First to market? by funny-jack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  13. Re:For those of us who don't follow such things... by e2d2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    xbox linux project

    There are others too. Just do a search on google. But thats a good start. Not sure about NetBSD.

  14. Virginia Tech? by Saven+Marek · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  15. Re:For those of us who don't follow such things... by e2d2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ahh, here we go:NetBSD on xbox

  16. $99 - Sounds Familiar by WombatControl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:$99 - Sounds Familiar by *weasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      common wisdom has already shown that Microsoft is positioning itself as being in competition with Sony for the top spot, not with Nintendo for second-place. Dropping their price to try to beat Nintendo's second wind growth is highly unlikely.

      As is, Microsoft is doing a very good job at getting the attention of hardcore gamers. Quite frankly, Sony has moved 7 PS2s for every Xbox MS moved - and yet they rack up significantly fewer than 7x the game sales each month. It shouldn't even be a remotely fair competition in console software sales month to month for the top 10 spots, and yet it is.

      So trying for a huge installed base doesn't really behoove them at this point. Particularly not when they are already losing so much per console, and when Sony is selling loads of consoles to people who frankly aren't buying games. (which is giving them a fairly similar net loss on the hardware)

      Sony and MS are in a much tighter competition at this point than anyone expected. They truly don't need to stick their neck out at this point.

      That said, if MS bundles dual functionality (eg PVR capability) in the neXtBox, they likely might see the type of insane early-adoption that Sony saw with its dvd player functionality. PVR in 2005, like DVD in 2001, is functionality people want, but aren't willing to pay a high unit price to acquire. If one can capture an early lead, the risk can pay off. But without such killer functionality, MS would likely win few converts, lose people who are holding out for a bigger/better/faster PS3, and would more likely suffer Sega's fate.

      Without an ace up their sleeve, some technology that people are clamoring for at consumer price levels, a 2005 release by MS is highly unlikely.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  17. I doubt this is true by DrDoombender · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Microsoft, certainly, is in a much stronger position than Sega. The Xbox's buzz factor is on the rise - and will soar higher if the company opts for a $99 price tag. But it hasn't yet established a reputation that's strong enough for it to sway Sony loyalists

    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).

  18. Re:loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. How much loss per unit? by EulerX07 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. If(XBOX == $99) XBOX2 = backward compatible; by telstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If(XBOX == $99) XBOX2 = backward compatible;

    Here's my logic ... 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.

    Now, Sell the XBOX2 with backward compatibility so the barrier to entry for new users isn't that large ... 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.

  21. People buy a console for games, not vice versa by MunchMunch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    " 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."

    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.

    1. Re:People buy a console for games, not vice versa by dhamsaic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am a huge game nut, and own (and love) all three current home console platforms. (Up to date as of about a month ago - http://users.ign.com/collection/dham)

      Xbox really has a lot going for it. It is indeed a bit weak on the exclusives, but its overall library is very strong. Everything that's come out on all three platforms is almost uniformly better on the Xbox (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Soul Calibur II, TimeSplitters 2, etc), and it's now got Grand Theft Auto Double Pack, which is spectacularly polished when compared to the PS2 versions of the games (the load times alone made it worth a re-purchase; the fact that the cars look amazing is just icing on an already delicious cake).

      If you only have a GameCube, then I would think that GTA and Panzer Dragoon Orta would be compelling enough to warrant a purchase (but then again, I have nearly 40 Xbox games and two Xboxes). Knights of the Old Republic is also seen by many as a must-own title, but that really depends on your affinity for RPGs.

      Where Xbox is really strong, I think, is when compared to PS2 from the standpoint of the casual gamer. The Xbox does not require a multitap (saving you ~$30), does not require an online adaptor (saving you ~$40) and does not require memory cards (which are running about $25 each for PS2 and Xbox). Casual gamers want to play titles like Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur II, TimeSplitters 2, Grand Theft Auto, etc - all of which the Xbox has, in far superior form than its PS2 counterparts.

      Xbox will never have all the franchises we love and wax nostalgic over, mainly because those were all born on Nintendo, by Nintendo. The exclusives you mentioned are all great games (and I own all of them but Wind Waker). When we were growing up (I'm 22), Nintendo was the console. Microsoft can't compete with Samus.

      I honestly feel that the Xbox and the GameCube work very well together. I bought a GameCube at $199, two at $149, and will probably pick up another one at $99. I use it to play the great exclusives it's got (Animal Crossing is my current addiction and Ikaruga is a beast). For everything else, I turn to Xbox, because its versions of the games are simply better than on the other consoles.

      The point I'm really trying to make is that Microsoft cannot compete with Nintendo for gamers' hearts, and they know that. Don't look at Xbox as competition for GameCube, look at it as competition for PS2.

      --
      Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
    2. Re:People buy a console for games, not vice versa by egomaniac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I'm in the same boat. I have an Xbox, a PS2, and a GameCube.

      I have four Xbox games.
      I have five PS2 games.
      I have twenty-six GameCube games.

      I'm pretty platform-agnostic, too. All three of my systems are hooked up via an autosensing switchbox and have wireless controllers, so playing any one of them is no more complicated than turning it on and grabbing the controller. Because of that, it's not like I have a excuse for wanting to play one system more than the other (well, the Xbox is in the closet, so I'd have to drag it out and hook it up...). Nothing like that.

      I just find that there are very few games on the other two systems that interest me in the least, whereas the GameCube has a ton. Plus the GameCube has a lot more female-friendly games, which is important to me because it's a lot easier for me to score gaming time if my wife wants to play too.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  22. Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry by dhamsaic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  23. Re:This is bad by Bobman1235 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  24. Re:I look at the quality of games by scot4875 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Halo2,DoomIII,Fable,Ninja Gaiden

    You're a marketing goon's wet dream. Neither you, nor anyone else outisde the dev teams has ever even *played* these games, but you're sitting there drooling over them like a moron. And to top it off, you're convinced that you shouldn't buy a competitor's product now because these things that will probably come out some time in the future could/should be prettier and may or may not be fun.

    As an aside, while the other 3 should be good, all I have to say about Fable is: Black and White, anyone?

    While you're waiting for the next big thing, (most of) the rest of us will be enjoying what's currently out. And believe it or not, there's a lot of top-quality stuff out for those 'inferior' systems right now.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal