Xbox for $99? Xbox 2 in 2005? 738
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."
This is bad (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:$99!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget cheap consoles..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Analyst Guesses (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
$99 - Sounds Familiar (Score:5, 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...
I doubt this is true (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Maybe we we should all buy one... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Backwards Compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you know of an x86-to-PPC compatibility layer that can be plunked into a $300 console...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard this kind of marketing crap by MS b4 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:loss (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I saw [infoworld.com] 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.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft were to drop the price to $99, it would be purely to dethrone Nintendo from the "#2" position. Nintendo would probably retaliate with a great game pack-in or promo before dropping the price any more. The $99 price range is where the added hardware features of the XBox begin to matter a lot less. They are so cheap, most people would just buy both machines. In the end, it will be the games that matter for the number 2 position. Though the XBox does have "Live" and the wasted hard drive feature, it doesn't have the franchises that Nintendo has. All of the talk about XBox's games is "Halo this" and "Halo that." Halo alone cannot sustain a console. While people are awaiting Halo 2, I'll be playing Baten Kaitos, PSO 3, Chrystal Chronicles, and the Tales of Destiny games, Metal Gear Solid remake, Metriod Prime 2, All of which will never come out on the XBox.
Check out these games - most of which are exclusives.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/474/474953p1.html?
How much loss per unit? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of the power of a monopoly trying to break into another market. There is NO way that a company could start out and keep losing tons of money like they're doing on the xbox. That's what's wrong with monopolies. They get so much income from selling windows xp pro (full version 449$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.
Re:This is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
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; (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my logic
Now, Sell the XBOX2 with backward compatibility so the barrier to entry for new users isn't that large
Re:so? (Score:2, Insightful)
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".
Re:$99!?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
They make half decent media playback boxes, but as for a PVR, buy a PVR, or build/buy a media center TV.
Xbox at 99 + HDD upgrade + TV tuner + mod chip + hassles = ugly (hacked usb dongle TV tuner hanging out the front), practically useless and probably cost more than a ReplayTV all told..
People buy a console for games, not vice versa (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I doubt this is true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A wise move (Score:2, Insightful)
MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:1, 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.
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. Of course as long as Microsoft is willing to lose 1 billion/year on XBox, you don't see the price in the stores...
XBox2 seems to me an even bigger moneypit than XBox1. Also XBox faces the constant danger of being discontinued when the Office and Windows profits no longer grow, it is a product that cannot survive on it's own merit, it needs constant and huge flow of cash, which isn't really a good long-term strategy.
Re:loss (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:loss (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Maybe they should make better games first... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:$99!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:People buy a console for games, not vice versa (Score:3, Insightful)
I only consider a game must-buy for a system if its only available for that system, or inherently unplayable on any ports that may exist.
Re:People buy a console for games, not vice versa (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:People buy a console for games, not vice versa (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Forget cheap consoles..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What does it take to trigger 'anti-dumping' law (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:4, Insightful)
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!).
Re:Familiarities (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
CNN Commentary Column? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I doubt this is true (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you forget the period. The Dreamcast beat the PS2 to market in the US almost a year in advance. At the time, if you wanted the best looking version of the suprise hit Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, you got the Dreamcast version. If you wanted any online play at all, you got a Dreamcast; it would be years before the PS2 had a real offering. The Dreamcast was dead and buried long before there was broadband support for the PS2, suggesting that lack of broadband was a problem is confusing cause and effect. While comparing current PS2 titles to Dreamcast titles does give a healthy edge to the PS2, at the time they were comperable (in much the same way that the PS2 and the X-Box are now comperable). Crazy Taxi and Jet Grind Radio are still great looking games.
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:1, Insightful)
Saturn came out early and bombed, 3DO actually came out earlier than that and bombed even more, Dreamcast also came out before PS2 and didn't fare well either. All systems had good games at launch, Dreamcast probably the most out of all of them and yet they all failed.
Will the XBox2 and PS3 be as great a jump as the PS2 was over the PS1...probably not. I believe we've started to reach a technical peak for a bit.
Even if the XBox2 is superior to the PS3 (which I doubt), I don't believe the differences from the current systems will be as great and people will wait for the PS3 since "there doesn't seem to be a reason to upgrade to a XBox2 so we'll wait and see what the PS3 can do" kind of mentality.
Another reason, with 2005 as a release date, you need people making games now for the XBox2, which I doubt is really going on.
Lastly, XBox doesn't have any "must own" titles, and if someone says Halo I'll swear I'll slap em
First doesn't mean the best sales, hasn't yet for any system I can think of, and probably never will be due to costs, developers "waiting to see what happens," and usually a hurried launch.