By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

Cheaper console. An affordable entry cost is super important. The problem with cheaper games, are those who aren't buying 10-12 games. For all the buyers who are only going to get 5 or 6 games over the lifetime of the console, if that, they aren't going to buy the more expensive unit on the shelf, even if they know the games are cheaper than the competitions. Many won't know that though.

If they want to try something like this, they could go with $499 and $50 for games, which will work if the competition also does $499, but keeps games at $60. I really don't see much point in this if you're PS though. MS could try this but PS doesn't have to.

I don't know if most people would know how many games they will buy on a gen, but they will know that one HW is more expensive with cheaper games than the other.

This will benefit the hardcore considerably more than it would benefit the casuals. That's a terrible business model for a company looking to move 100 million units over the lifetime of the device. It's basically the opposite of what we've been hearing whispers about, in that MS is thinking about having you pay affordable monthly fee's for the hardware as long as you're subbed to their online services. If you were to put a program like that up against what you described, the monthly hardware model is going to see much greater success in terms of moving hardware. Paying for things up front is not the future, let alone the present, it's the past.