So the proper term here is 'introduced alternative option with lowered cost of entry and removed features that were deemed unnecessary in order to stimulate sales and accommodate lack of sufficient consumer interest in previous price of entry and featureset'? O.O Doesn't that still stem from lack of sufficient consumer interest?

Still not a price cut, just a lower price entry, A price cut would be to cut price with all original content.

The 50 dollar cut, was a price cut.

It's like me selling you a cake, however you don't want the whole cake. So I cut the cake in half and sell it to you for half the price, it's not a price cut, it's taking some product to make it cost effective to the consumer.

So would it be acceptable then, to say that the ms has lowered the entry cost by 150$?

Like, if someone said, "even with 150$ lower entry cost, it's still being outsold", that would be acceptable?

I agree, it's different in execution, my point is that is still comes from the same point of motivation as a price cut. A company would cut the price of a product because it was determined that, at that price, the market just wasn't purchasing it in numbers high enough to satisfy whatever self-applied goalpost the company set, be it a fixed number or just a percentage of marketshare. Microsoft could have simply cut the price to 399 and kept the Kinect but, so as not to incur hardware loses likely, they chose to release the alternate SKU lacking the Kinect (something they felt comfortable doing because the market didn't seem enamored with it anyway)

But it still boils down to, (I'll borrow your example,) a baker saying 'I will sell you this cake for twenty five dollars!" You say no, so the baker cuts off a piece of the cake and reduces the price to, say, twenty dollars. You still say no, so the baker places a cupcake on the counter and says "Okay, buy this cake and I shall throw in this cupcake, still for twenty dollars!" You say no, so the baker adds a SECOND cupcake, "Okay, if you buy this in the next five minutes, you may have the cake, and TWO cupcakes, all for twenty dollars." For whatever reason, you still say no, and so the baker mutters, removes one of the cupcakes, and announces; "FINE, then, you may have this cake, and this single cupcake for fifteen dollars! ...I might also toss in one of these older cupcakes."

Now, in execution, this isn't the same thing as the baker just saying "I will give you the whole cake for twenty dollars," but in the end, it still boils down to haggling with the consumer, increasing the 'bang for your buck,' sometimes by increasing the bang, (free game bundles) and sometimes by decreasing the buck. (Price cuts.) In this case, Microsoft got to have their cake and eat it too (lawl, pun,) by lowering the cost without actually eating higher costs in terms of the hardware sales. And then they increased the bang by adding a free game, sometimes two depending on the situation or bundle.

When a lot of people note stuff like price cuts, even if the terminology is wrong, it still boils down to Microsoft apparently having to haggle a LOT with the consumer this year to get close to wherever it is they want to be. And it raises some of the same questions as a price cut, such as 'So, if I say no to the baker AGAIN, how many more cupcakes can I get out of him? >.> '

Well said zanten.

350 is a 50 dollar price cut, the bundle contains the same contents. Taking Kinect out is like only selling 4/5 of the cake for a cheaper price.

Yes they did all of it because of poor sales... I'm not fighting that... ^^^^ to all posts. Loll Not sure if I missed something.

Thanks! :3