Xbox Price Cuts Confirmed

Place your bets... by AKAImBatman · 2008-09-03 11:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

...the Wii will still sell better.

Even at $199, the majority of consumers feel like they're getting half a system when they get the 360 without a hard drive. As a result, they're going to be looking at the higher $299 price tag. The Wii doesn't have that problem (at least not yet) because the system has the exact same fixed storage on all systems. What you get is what you get. You do not miss out on anything because you purchased the cheaper model.

(Anyone reminded of Henry Ford's, "You can have any color you want as long as it's black"? ;-))

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:Place your bets... by Cathoderoytube · 2008-09-03 11:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not so sure this is a shot at Nintento so much as it is a shot at Sony. Just a guess though.

--
I have nothing compelling to say
Re:Place your bets... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-03 11:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

Even at $199, the majority of consumers feel like they're getting half a system when they get the 360 without a hard drive.
The Arcade version currently comes with a memory card, so it's not completely useless.
Moreover, I work part-time at GameStop and I've sold a number of Arcade units to people who just want an extra system for LAN play (it must be nice to have money).
Re:Place your bets... by MooseMuffin · 2008-09-03 13:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Basically the opposite situation here. I'm a Wii and 360 owner and the only game I've finished on the Wii was resident evil 4, which I never played on any of its other platforms but can't imagine it was half as good without the wiimote. I was excited for Mario and Zelda but really never picked them up after the first few days I had them. They were well done for sure, but they just didn't hold my interest like I thought they would. Maybe my tastes have changed since the n64 days. I picked up smash brothers for cheap one day, but it plays far too loose to appeal to my fighting game loving side. Generally, the Wii is now used to show friends who come by who haven't played with one very much. I certainly don't discount the Wii though. RE4 proved that they could definitely utilize the machine in a way that would interest me; They just haven't done it since.
The 360 gets played all the time though, largely due to the friends list I think. I turn it on for a couple of quick geometry wars games and end up being invited to some other gaming session that ultimately lasts 4 times as long as I planned on gaming. Halo is a big culprit here, not because it's a particularly great shooter (I'm partial to cod4 on PC), but its good enough and nearly ubiquitous among 360 owners. If you know some 360 owners, you probably all have halo and can play that together. Between the friends list and voice chat, I've probably maintained friendships with college buddies who I may have otherwise lost touch with.
Additionally, soul calibur handles my fighting game fix, putting friends-filtered high score lists on the main screen in geometry wars turned it into an ever-present obsession, and the draw of the online music store within rock band is downright lethal once I've had a drink or two...
Re:Place your bets... by Cheapy · 2008-09-03 16:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Interesting, because my story is the exact opposite. I've played the Wii once in the past 3 months, and that was for an hour, playing Brawl with my cousins.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?

$199 model by Enderandrew · 2008-09-03 11:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd never buy one without a HDD, but that is just me. Even with the new avatars and dash, the XBox is aimed at a different audience than the Wii. I don't think they honestly compete directly. The real competition here is Sony. Microsoft still has a larger install base, though Sony was catching up.

Now if Sony wants to honestly compete in this generation, they need to drop their core model to $300 before Black Friday. Microsoft is losing tons of money on the hardware because of RROD problems (which continue to persist, even on new Elite models) but Sony is also losing quite a bit.

The difference is that Microsoft has other business models to produce plenty of profit. Sony's other divisions are doing decent, but they aren't producing Microsoft-type revenues.

They're both shooting themselves in the foot to see who will lose the most money before the other one pulls out of the race. Why?

Because next generation, if only one competes, they don't have to lose so much money. Nintendo is competing for another segment, and either Microsoft or Sony could in theory run away solo with the high-end, hardcore console market.

Then again, neither see the true solution. Sony has BluRay, and Microsoft doesn't want to pay to license it. Microsoft has DirectX, which Sony doesn't want to utilize, even though it makes development easier for PC/Console games. Microsoft also bought the rumble patent that Sony didn't want to pay for. Neither have incredible first-party titles, and both end up shelling out money to bribe third-party developers for console exclusives, killing potential profits.

The solution really is one console. Developers would love to have a larger install base to develop for, and not worrying about porting to two platforms.

Imagine a console that could be developed for easily (DirectX), that had BluRay, and featured both Halo and Metal Gear Solid? Both Sony and Mirosoft could turn a profit on the venture. They both put their best technology in the box, with their combined patent portfolios and also combine console exclusives. Together they'd reclaim some of the market share they lost to Nintendo, even though most of Nintendo's market really is a different audience.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.

Re:$199 model by WDot · 2008-09-03 13:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

While I'd agree that more similar hardware would be good, do we really want "one console?" What if that one console forces an Xbox live-style subscription service? Then I don't have a choice. What about competition? They can charge whatever for their combined box because there's no alternative for that demographic. PC gaming? Too difficult (not true, but that's the general thought). The Wii2? Nintendo's focus isn't on the 360 and PS3 crowd anymore. If this happens, Sony/Microsoft can push whatever intrusive DRM and accessory forcing strategies they want, because there's no alternative.

What about developers? If there's no competition, sure it's easy development, but it also means that there's no competition for dev kits. They could make it so that only the EAs and Activisions of the world could afford dev kits, and that's simply the price to pay if you want to develop a game for the Xboxstation4.

I personally don't care if it's costing Microsoft and Sony billions to compete, because at least they're COMPETING. It would cost some people a hobby if they decided to collude.
Re:$199 model by Enderandrew · 2008-09-03 13:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

I didn't say best for the consumer, I'm saying best for Sony, Microsoft and game developers. Frankly either one loses and leaves the market, or they consolidate. However, they're losing so much money I don't see both in the market indefinitely.
As far as DRM goes, every console maker uses DRM. The PS3 is the most open console in history, and Sony's online service is free. All three companies (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo) have done some shitty things in their day, so I won't claim any is good and/or evil. But a merged console isn't necessary a totally bad thing either.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Re:$199 model by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-03 14:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

However, they're losing so much money I don't see both in the market indefinitely.
Actually, neither of them is losing money. They're losing money on the consoles, but xbox is cleaning up with xbox live subscriptions + sales and sony isn't doing too badly on game licenses (and they'll start doing better as the installed base for ps3's increases).
They don't need to "win" in order to make tons of profit. They just need to remain competitive enough that game studios release for both platforms.
Re:$199 model by tbannist · 2008-09-04 01:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think either Sony or Microsoft would want that. On Microsoft's part, they simply want to drive Sony out of the console market like Sega was driven out. Why? Because they see winning the console market once for all as the first step in establishing a monopoly on all home networking.
If you're running Windows on your home computer and Windows on your TV, what are you going to use in the rest of your house? No, this isn't a conspiracy, just the marketing seminar I had to sit through that was essentially run and funded by Microsoft on home networking. Simply stated their goal is out maneuver Linux by taking over home electronics marketplace.
Their goal is ridiculous and they have no idea how to do it, but that's still what they're aiming for.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:$199 model by SoopahMan · 2008-09-04 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

One console would harm competition though. For example, Sony briefly was deluded into thinking that Blu-Ray and the PS3 were going to conquer all. As part of the Blu-Ray standard at the time, there were serious, serious limitations on existing HDTVs when playing Blu-Ray content - basically you got near-SD picture because you had an unapproved device. It sucked, and HD-DVD could thump it for that. Just before the PS3 was released, Sony dropped that limitation.
Without that competition that wouldn't have happened. Without competition, Sony would probably be doing much worse DRM things to gamers. And we gamers could all stand there and say, "Good thing there's only one next gen console I have to buy. Too bad it sucks." Competition gets DRM providers to get rid of their stupid DRM - it's happened here, and it's happening in the online music industry right now. You've got to have multiple consoles if you want to keep gaming and video playback reasonable for the consumer.

Re:Alright by jaxtherat · 2008-09-03 12:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

And that's why there's people smarter than you running businesses.

--
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/

Upgrading basic version? by c_forq · 2008-09-03 12:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now I'm tempted. Is there a way to upgrade the basic version (paying less than $100) to put a harddrive in? And the basic play GTA4 without a HD?

--
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns

Re:Wii-lovers by nomadic · 2008-09-03 16:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

why is a new platform needed? provide new and backward compatible graphics API and the same, but faster CPU (maybe multi-core, if really needed) and developers can start with their feet on the ground, running.

That's a good idea, and if I ran console design that's what I would do.

sony said "hay lets change it all again and then make even double hard to do - w00tz cell pwn ftw n00b" (*choke*)

To be fair to Sony, the PS1 was notoriously hard to develop for, but that didn't stop it from being extremely successful.

nintendo said "know how to develop for a gamecube? great, the wii is mostly the same, with a bit faster hardware and a new input device"

Well that's the problem, the hardware just isn't as fast as it should be. They should have gone with something faster and more powerful, and they definitely should have put in HDMI/DVI support.

Re:Wii-lovers by vux984 · 2008-09-04 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well that's the problem, the hardware just isn't as fast as it should be. They should have gone with something faster and more powerful, and they definitely should have put in HDMI/DVI support.

Somethings gotta give.

If they'd put in Hidef support, on the existing CPU/GPU, the framerate would have sucked. You can't just pump 5x as many pixels by adding an HDMI connector.

So they would have had to significantly bump up the CPU/GPU just to deliver the same performance on HD.

And then you want more available CPU too? Well, we just bumped it up to keep up with HDMI, but all the extra horsepower is used up just keeping up with the HD.

So we have to bump it up again to give you some more horsepower to actually work with.

So now we need to quadruple the processing and video power, license hdmi, probably need to worry about cooling the damned thing now too. Something's gotta give...

Price.

So now instead of $279 its $399 at launch, and competing directly with the PS3, sales are significantly lower, and 4 out 5 users don't have an HDTV anyway. Oh and the hidef games cost mroe to develop too... so those go up in price too.

Epic fail.

For what its worth, I'd love a hi-def Wii too, and if they were launching NOW instead of 2 years ago, we'd probably have gotten one. But I think Nintendo made the right choice this 'generation'. Its obviously served them better than chasing the 360 and PS3 hardware. They are the ones that actually make money in this business.

Re:Wii-lovers by nomadic · 2008-09-04 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

If they'd put in Hidef support, on the existing CPU/GPU, the framerate would have sucked. You can't just pump 5x as many pixels by adding an HDMI connector.

You don't HAVE to transmit in 1920x1080 mind you, but having that option would be good. Action games with a lot of things on screen could use a lower resolution, but static images and puzzle games could take advantage of the higher resolution.

I don't know at what level they should have done the CPU, but I do know the level they did do it at was too low. My Wii just struggles on things that no console younger than 8 years old should struggle on. I see very little difference graphics-wise between the Wii and the Dreamcast, and the Dreamcast is close to a decade old now. I mean, if you're not going to do that why not just develop the wiimote for the gamecube?

16 of 196 comments (clear)