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."
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Interesting)
$99!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$99!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$99!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:$99!?!? (Score:3, Informative)
So make sure you do get a 3rd generation (or preferably older) XBox with the old pre-"Live 2.0" dash.
Re:$99!?!? (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 [teamxecuter.com] for more information.
Re:$99!?!? (Score:3, Informative)
People who say you can't do this or that with a hacked Xbox are just wrong.
The list of things you can do with a hacked Xbox is lengthy. Dropping to $99 is a steal for the best console out there (due to the hack).
Re:$99!?!? (Score:2, Troll)
Google and half a brain.
Re:$99!?!? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So... (Score:4, Funny)
S
Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Luddite? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft were to drop the price to $99, i
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: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: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.
Is that what the controllers look like? (Score:2)
I've never seen an Xbox. That thing looks hideously uncomfortable.
Maybe I am just a luddite, I am still playing games on the SNES and I just got a Playstation 1 for Giftmas last year.
Re:Is that what the controllers look like? (Score:3, Informative)
The new one (S Controller) is smaller, not as comfortable for me.
SNES, PSX etc. controllers? Too small for my hands, I just freaking cramp if I play longer on them.
Too bad that they stopped producing the original controller
Verge? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Verge? (Score:3, Informative)
If it's all true, anyways.
-Erwos
Forget cheap consoles..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
$99??? (Score:2)
Re:$99??? (Score:2)
You're assuming they actually make money selling the console.
Backwards Compatibility (Score:4, Interesting)
I use my GBA and PS2 to play old games all the time. If the Gamecube let me, I'd be playing old N64 and Super Nintendo games, too.
Re:Backwards Compatibility (Score:2)
Re:Backwards Compatibility (Score:2)
Yeh, I read an article somewhere about the current rumours regarding the consoles of the future, and they mentioned the backwards compatibility issue. Sony did it with the PS2, and I believe it was nothing but a good thing for them. Xbox should be in a better situation because it's all built on PC hardware, which should change so drastically that you can't run the onld games on a new system. I personally think that this 99$ drop will only be useful if all those people who buy cheap xboxes with games can t
Re:Backwards Compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you know of an x86-to-PPC compatibility layer that can be plunked into a $300 console...
Re:Backwards Compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
It says "Microsoft will use the Virtual PC technology it acquired from Connectix last year to provide backward-compatibility with the current generation of Xbox games."
A wise move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A wise move (Score:2)
Re:A wise move (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A wise move (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A wise move (Score:3)
Shilling (Score:4, Funny)
I could really use the dough.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Funny)
Inconcievable!
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
No no no, its just more Microsoft porpaganda.
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.
Re:Analyst Guesses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Analyst Guesses (Score:3, Informative)
They are educated guesses. IBM already began taping out processors for the new XBOX. Couldn't think of reason why IBM would start getting their manufactoring line ready if the launch date was 2 years away.
First to market? (Score:4, Interesting)
And we all know that being the first next-gen console to market virtually guarantees success. [dreamcast.com]
Standard components (Score:2, Informative)
so? (Score:2)
So far, the best application I have seen for the xbox was a distributed multilevel map zoom system. The inventors bought several xboxes at Elkjop and eventually sold one system til the Pentagon.
Happy Meal (Score:4, Funny)
$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...
Re:$99 - Sounds Familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:$99 - Sounds Familiar (Score:3, Informative)
2003 Top 10 Console Video Game Titles, Sorted By Units
RANK TITLE PLATFORM PUBLISHER RELEASE DATE
1 MADDEN NFL 2004 (PS2) ELECTRONIC ARTS AUG'03
2 POKEMON RUBY (GBA) NINTENDO OF AMERICA MAR'03
3 POKEMON SAPPHIRE (GBA) NINTENDO OF AMERICA MAR'03
4 NEED SPEED: UNDERGROUND (PS2) ELECTRONIC ARTS NOV'03
5 ZELDA: THE WIND WAKER (GCN) NINTENDO OF AMERICA MAR'03
6 GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE CITY (PS2) ROCKSTAR GAMES OCT'02
7 MARIO KART: DOUBLE DASH (GCN) NINTENDO OF AMERICA NOV'03
8 TONY HAWK UNDERGROUND (PS2
What! About! Halo?! (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:I doubt this is true (Score:4, Interesting)
I totally disagree. The ease of hacking the Dreamcast probably helped more than it hurt. Because:
1. It encouraged hobbiests & geeks (slashdot types) to buy it so that they could play around with some of the neat community hacks, or make their own. Personally I loved the idea of running mame & linux on the DC.
2. It drove up hardware sales because, hey, you can get games for free.
3. It probably even increased the sales of GOOD games because once the hardware is out there, people will buy the good games that they can't get for free, or that they want to support.
Piracy probably hurt the bad games quite a lot, but who cares? Those games were bad anyway.
I believe what killed the Dreamcast wasn't piracy but technical inferiority. The graphics weren't as good as the PS2, it couldn't play back DVDs, and its online support was a joke. (True, the PS2 and Xbox online support was also MIA at the time but at least it was promised to have broadband capability; the DC only had a built-in modem and no broadband capability)
Re:I doubt this is true (Score:3, 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
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 sti
Re:Maybe we we should all buy one... (Score:2)
99 Dollar Media Player (Score:2)
I assume the 99 dollar special will still be 'modable'
Why does it matter that it's $99? (Score:2, Troll)
And yet... (Score:3, Funny)
How much loss per unit? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of the power of a monopoly trying to break into another market. There is NO way that a company could start out and keep losing tons of money like they're doing on the xbox. That's what's wrong with monopolies. They get so much income from selling windows xp pro (full version 449$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:How much loss per unit? (Score:3, Funny)
Unless you run Linux, in which case your Xbox purchase is being subsidized by the oppressed masses of Windows users....
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
I look at the quality of games (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I look at the quality of games (Score:5, Interesting)
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
New hardware feature: upgrade cycle acceleration (Score:3, Informative)
I played my Atari 2600 from 1981, when I got it, until 1988, when I finally got an NES. And in 1981, the console was already several years on the market. It finally quit working in 1990-91. I bet, if I still had it today, that I could probably repair it, too. Damn that was a solid machine.
What's next? (Score:3, Funny)
CNN Hype (Score:3, Informative)
Truth is that most people do not expect Microsoft to go to $99 dollars. In fact, a price drop to $129 would keep sales on par with 2003. But hey, $99 is a sexy number that Chris Morris wants to base his entire article on. Remember these are the same analysts that predicted a price drop on both the PS2 and the X-Box at Christmas. Neither one happened.
Some idiocy in that estimate (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Have TV's caught up yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Other than new games, how can they justify to the consumer that this new system is better?
Re:For those of us who don't follow such things... (Score:5, Informative)
There are others too. Just do a search on google. But thats a good start. Not sure about NetBSD.
Re:For those of us who don't follow such things... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those of us who don't follow such things... (Score:2)
GF graphics card somewhere between GF3 and GF4 power.
64mb DDR ram.
A mod Chip [xbreporter.com] is required to bypass the normal startup routine and allows you to install a custom version of Linux [sourceforge.net]
on your Xbox, most of them will play XBox games, along with allowing you to place and play most types of media on your Xbox. Often even including the ability to ftp files up to your Xbox via ethernet connection.
The bad part is you can't play XBox live with a mod chip running. (unless you enjoy being banned from MS sev
Re:isnt the ps3 out? (Score:2, Informative)
Virginia Tech? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Virginia Tech? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the price of one Dual G5 2.0GHz PowerMac, assuming $99/Xbox, you can buy 30 Xboxes.
The mac has Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5, 512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM, 160GB Serial ATA disk, a DVD burner, an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro with 64MB, GigE, a 56k modem, 800Mbps firewire, and USB 2.0. 30 Xboxs have 30 733MHz P3s, I believe 64MB per system for a total of 1920MB memory but I forget what kind, 8*30 for 240GB of total disk space, 30 DVD-ROMs, NVidia GEforce graphics (not at all irrelevant in the cluster; you can offload mathematics processing to the GPU with the proper libraries, as was reported here a little while back), 100Mbps networking, and USB 1.1.
Assuming your supercomputing tasks can be broken down into bite size chunks (which can be handled in 64MB) the Xbox solution will be much cheaper for the same amount of processing power, but will take up much more space and consume much more power (30 hard drives for example, even 8GB ones, will consume about as much power as the one hard drive in the Mac.)
Xboxes are a decent choice for a small Linux cluster. You can even use the Cromwell BIOS and you're not even violating copyright law. Pick up one refurbished PC from geeks.com for $500 or so to be the cluster master, and 20 Xboxes or so, and you have some fairly significant processing power available to you. However, with 1U dual opteron systems down to about two grand with similar disk/memory to the powermac, if you want to build a cluster of Linux systems, there are probably more cost-effective ways to go about it than using Xboxes.
Re:loss (Score:3, Informative)
When Microsoft launched the Xbox in 2001 for $299, it reportedly lost $100 for every unit it sold.
I know this is
Of course you did not RTFA.
Re:loss (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:loss (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason is quite simple. Inside a PS2, Sony owns everything. The emotion engine, the audio hardware, the mpeg decoder, everything. So, when it decides to put the video silicon and the emotion chip silicon on the same die, there are not any problems. 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 in
Re:loss (Score:3)
Re:loss (Score:3, Informative)
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 t
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.
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: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: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: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:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:3, Informative)
Please, stop. This is demonstrably false. Xbox was officially announced in March of 2000, specs and all. PlayStation 2 shipped in North America in October of 2000.
Of course I was talking about production prices, not retail prices.
What? Those matter how? The consumer doesn't care how much it costs the company to make the console. If price/performance matters, then the price is what the consumer pays and the performance i
Re:MS doesn't understand the console industry (Score:3, Informative)
As the other poster noticed, you really don't keep up, do you? According to what we currently know [ign.com] about Xbox 2, "backwards compatibility is out of the question". Thanks for playing.
Re:Familiarities (Score:2)
Now Microsoft are probably turning towards brand loyalty, get as many people familiar with the product in the hope that this will lead to increased sales in the newer, bigger(hopefully not literally) and better version.
Re:Familiarities (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft != Sega
Sega was hurting financially (and still is) when they cut their system price to try to sell through their remaining inventory. Sony FUD + lack of confidence inspired by their Saturn bomb + lack of marketing practically killed the company despite the 1 year lead and easy to develop for system.
Microsoft has plenty of cash and seems content to bleed it on X-Box to give X-Box 2 a market advantage. I wouldn't count Microsoft out of the game until *after* an X-Box 2 launch. And then, only
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?
Re:Familiarities (Score:3, Informative)
I also don't know where you got your "highest number of games bundled with any system" notion. It originally was not bundled with
Re:This is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
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!!
Re:This is bad (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Uphill battle, support the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
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