Xoj said: lulz microsoft and nintendo arent arrogant xO. it's PR, i heard microsoft and nintendo said worse, though this is just his opinion, and it's true that even with year headstart ps3 isn't trailing much behind. but it was microsoft rushing that got them into RROD.
and nintendo wasn't much angel either SNES and n64 era. that's ignore PR, when the console speaks for itself, the work 180,000 employees. |
In the context that all launch consoles from either company are doomed then RROD doesn't look as bad.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1388522&postcount=137
On topic:
It really depends on the motivations of the different participants as much as their abilities. If Microsoft values the PR/Marketing advantage of coming into the next generation from second place once again more than any profit they would forgo in the short term then they will be more aggressive in terms of pricing.
Its really quite simple mathematics. They are trending towards 1B/Y profit for this and future financial years in the EDD. If they need 12M/Y consoles to stay in the lead, they can cut the price/increase costs by between $50-$100 per console in order to do so. Its extremely likely they could cut the price down to say $169/$249 and bundle Natal at the same time. If you take say $169 + Natal @ $40 (cost) and assume thats the only SKU then strictly on hardware costs alone assuming no further reduction in hardware cost they would still be marginally profitable as a division over 12M consoles sold.
Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?