| noname2200 said: Let's...let's try this again. My guess is you're not reading what I write, but responding helps pass the time. Okay, the original statement you made is that complaining about paying an additional $50/year (on top of the base unit price) for every year you use the system is "amusing" when not complaining "about the fact that the Wii has stayed at its original price of $250." This is a poor counter-argument because you're comparing an ongoing subscription fee to a unit price, i.e. two completely different things, instead of comparing unit price to unit price (or total price to total price, etc.). To put it in other terms, you're comparing a complete car to an optional service plan. Why? The part about tech features has already been answered, and you've said nothing to make me reconsider that position. Finally, your last paragraph is a complete mess. Two points: 1) What does a company's profits have to do with the consumer's value? Before responding, consider carefully what "value" to a consumer means. A small pearl of wisdom to start you off: it does not mean "moar stuff!"Nor does "Company X is making a profit!" have anything to do with it. 2) I invite you to point out any evidence that the underlined is true. Here is my post history. If you're correct, you should have no problem finding evidence to support your statement somewhere in my roughly 5,600 posts. In fact, it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes, right? I eagerly await your response.
|
Okay, as you say, let's try this again.
Point 1. Microsoft runs a service, Xbox Live, that has a lot of features (software updates, online chat, messaging, free symposium videos (E3, ComicCon, etc.), streaming movies (pay-per-view), game downloads (pay-per-download), game videos, how-to videos, themes, etc., but only charges a subscription fee if the user wants to use a specific service... online gaming. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that it costs MS very little to host the online gaming. What does MS charge for the online gaming if you buy a 12+1 month subscription? $50 SRP, which works out to about $3.85 per month. I don't know what it costs MS to provide this service, but considering all the rest is free or pay-per-view/download, I'm not going to complain about a one month charge that is less than I spend for lunch each day. Considering we never use our Wii for online gaming (yes, we have a Wii), I'm going to compare the non-gaming part of the MS online service to the Wii service. Both are free.
Point 2. MS builds a very advanced gaming console with a lot of hardware in it (DVD drive that can play movies, some models with hard drive, some without), HD resolution gaming with hardware scaling, built-in ethernet (which by the way, does remove lag that often occurs in WiFi scenarios), upgradeable hard drive, etc. They sell this unit, initially, at a loss. Granted, they didn't do this out of the kindness of their hearts... they did it to try and move units. They now sell units at or just above cost. Nintendo releases a gaming console at $250, and brags after a while that they have made money on every single unit. Nice. My hat's off to them. 3 years later, they still sell the same unit for $250. They're making really good money on each unit sold. Good for them.
Summary:
1. Excluding online gaming, MS and Nintendo both give away their online access (system updates, etc.) for free. The Nintendo online service has a tiny number of features compared to what's available on XboxLive. Should MS be giving away all these features for free? Should Nintendo be providing these extra features? Does Nintendo provide an online gaming feature for their users? If so, is it free? Is MS screwing over their customers by providing optional gaming at $3.85 per month?
2. MS is selling the machine at cost or close to it. Nintendo is selling their unit at a very good profit. Is either company gouging the customer?
3. You can add/upgrade a hard drive on the 360, or buy a 360 with one built in. Nintendo has decided their customers don't need this option. MS provided built in Ethernet, while Nintendo provided built in WiFi. Hardcore FPS games prefer hardwired connections over WiFi to reduce lag. Hardwired connections are less convenient than WiFi for those who don't care about top FPS performance. Did MS screw over their customers? Did Nintendo?
It seems to me that both companies made calls regarding how best to serve their customers. I don't see either company screwing over their customers... I see two companies with two different approaches that appeal to different audiences. So, when I see a thread titled "How microsoft ruined fun for everybody", I have to comment on how rediculous a statement that is.
