Xbox 2 for $400?

An anonymous reader writes "CNN/Money has posted a new Game Over column quoting an industry analyst who suggests the next generation Xbox could cost as much as $400. This is on top of software price increases of as much as $10 per game, which (according to the article) have already been confirmed. Also discussed are backwards compatibility and the lingering question of whether the Next Xbox will have a hard drive."

Comments

3D0?

[ewy99]

First thing that came to mind when I saw this was the price for 3D0 when it first came out. What was it, $799??

More expensive games?

[owlet]

New Xbox games are currently about 60 euros (~80$) here in Finland. It feels to be pretty close to the limit anyone is willing to pay for a new game around here.

I call bull.

[Goosey]

Microsoft might be evil and borg-like, but they arn't stupid. At least not in their buisness practices, and history has shown many times that videogames are VERY price sensitive. If MS has any sense at all (hint: they do) then this article is total BS.

RTFA

[Squatchman]

Industry Speculation in this article only. Take out the word Xbox and put in any product name for the same effect.

Great just what the gaming industry needs

[aztektum]

Price increases

At least one major publisher (Activision) has gone on record saying it plans to increase wholesale prices on its AAA games. Others will likely follow its lead. That will probably result in retail prices jumping $5 to $10 per title.

With a price increase, I can guarantee you'll have more people pirating these "AAA" titles, which will probably be boring action/fps games anyway.

I realize it costs a lot to develop a game these days, but most of that time is spent on bump maps and fx. Gamers remember the days of 2D Asteroids and I'm sure would be willing to sacrifice 1337 graphics for challenging (truly challenging, not difficult jump puzzles cuz they're programmed for crap) games.

I see video games as an extension of paper puzzle games and board games. They need to be mentally engaging and fun to play over just "pretty." If you want to lookit eye catchy objects with minimal thought processing behind it, goto a museum (not to knock the art world I like museums.) Graphics should function as a way to visually serve the story and the gameplay.

Lookit the GTA series. Sure hardware limitations of the PS2 are valid arguments as to why the games 3D engine isn't as stylish as some, but they could have easily reduced the scope of the series in order to boost the graphical content on the screen. Yet they focused on a fun interactive experience and made serviceable, yet visually stimulating, graphics.

All I'm saying is a little more creativity in game design can go along way to helping them make more money as well. I know on /. I'm preaching to the choir on this, but the publishers don't seem to be listening.

Re:Great just what the gaming industry needs

[bigman2003]

The only problem with the points you made, is that you assume everyone feels the same way you do.

I *LIKE* 'boring action/fps games'. I *LIKE* when they look better than last year's game.

I've been playing games for about 30 years- and whenever I pick up a collection of 'treasures', I play for about 5 minutes before thinking "what a steaming pile of crap this game is."

I like progress. I've played Asteroids till my hemorroids flared up. I've played text adventures until my fingers turned blue. I'm a little tired of that stuff.

Now I've moved on to other games, and I like something new...

The whole idea that modern games have no creativity is laughable. Asteroids had creativity? (oooohhh...a small spaceship this time!) I personally think that modern games are much, much better.

Re:Xbox 1 price history

[oGMo]

So a price of $399 isn't that unreasonable, and we can expect similar price cuts over a three-year product lifespan.

Hardly matters. The PS3 will probably be no more than $299, and Sony is not likely to let the XBOX2 specs trump the PS3 this time around. Without that edge, what are people willing to pay $100 more for? And ending to Halo 2?

The speculation is probably just speculation; if the PS3 is $299, I doubt MS will dare to charge $399. They'd end up going the way of the Saturn (if they don't end up going the way of the Dreamcast).

Now, if it cost $399 to make, that wouldn't be much of a suprise, would it?

Re:Heh.

[Datamonstar]

the whole purpose of consoles was to be compact forms of entertainment affordable by the markets they target

That was the original purpose of consoles, however the scene has changed now and so have the rules. The consumers have changed, as well. Today, people are going to notice if graphics are inferior. It is also pretty much given that games with inferior graphics will be over-looked by all but the most hardcore gamers (not the mainstream majority whose cash gaming companies are trying to get).
So here we are now, with Xbox 2 upcoming and they expect people to buy it because it's the next new and cool thing. And they will. There's nothing wrong with this as all, if you want to be up and current with gaming. But the hardcore or old school gamers will be content playing their dusty old PS2/2 titles, 2D fighters on the Dreamcast, even classic games in some form or fashion.
The shock here isn't that Xbox2 will be pricey. It's the face that that it will still sell here in America just like the first one did.

Re:Xbox 1 price history

[thezapper77]

we can expect similar price cuts over a three-year product lifespan.

I remember the days before MS when consoles had a 5 year product lifespan. I can see MS is trying to bring it inline with the PC upgrade timeframe...

Re:Xbox 1 price history

[ElleyKitten]

People should stop talking about "winners" and "losers" in the console industry. All three make a ton of money (well, maybe not XBox, but whatever) and none of them died. So the winners are us, because we have choices, and competion keeps prices down for us. =)