| starcraft said: But the issue with MS's 2008 games is purely brandname. They will have games just as good as Sony, but apart from Halo Wars and GTA IV, most of them are unestablished new IP. Thats why I want an AGRESSIVE price cut or two, smaller ones over the course of the year (before GTAIV then before Christmas). |
My point is that MS does make mistakes - big ones, even. It's just, like the Yankees, they have enough money to keep those mistakes from crippling them. I also think they mishandled the 360 in 2007 - the PS3 has too many headline titles coming in 2008. MS should have been even more agressive last year, to keep Sony from capitalizing on these games. Now they've let the PS3 off the mat, and are trying to fend off the perception that 360 is going to lose.
For the record, I'm a Wii owner and XBox owner, and am dying for a 360 cut so I can finally play Dead Rising, Mass Effect, and Bioshock. And I will never own a PS3.
However, I must disagree with your assessment of the 360 lineup. As Sony has learned, new IPs that appear promising in January can prove embarassing come December. GT, FF, MGS all have proven track records. Alan Wake does not (and only the geekiest of us would know the connection to Max Payne).
I also want to say that one big price cut would be better, PR-wise, than 2 small ones. A couple of quick adjustments injects uncertainty in the market - if MS cuts prices every 6 months, a consumer is likely to be willing to wait a few more for the next bargain. It also implies uncertainty on the part of MS, if not outright failure (cutting price again? First one must not have worked!). And of course psycghologically, $50 cut doesn't look as good as $100 (which is why the $30-$50-$20 cut was referred to as a "$100 cut over 3 systems" in the press releases). A $100 cut by MS would be a bold move that, I think, would convey confidence to the gaming audience, and likely allay fears that an even cheaper price would be coming soon.
