By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aielyn on 29 June 2012
Edit Thread
yo_john117 said:
Aielyn said:

yo_john117 - Again, it's not the deal (the contract), it's the marketing. It's what they actually *say* about the deal. I challenge you to find an example of a house, car, etc deal in which they sell it in the same way that MS is selling their deal - that is, using words like "only" against only part of the cost, etc. You'll be hard-pressed, because they always use terms to make it clear, like "downpayment", "deposit", or "up front". And somewhere (often the fine print) they list the "minimum total price" (this is common, for instance, in gyms - where, if you want to cancel before the contract is up, you have to pay out the remainder of the minimum price).

You simply do not get it. Why?

Their marketing is no different than other marketing for contract items. The word "only" is used ONLY for the $99 part which is true. The initial cost is ONLY $99 which is far cheaper than the initial price of a non-contract 360.

I see only 3 reasons why you would keep on with your nonsense.

A: Cultural difference - maybe marketing doesn't work that way in Australia, but it does in the US.

B: You've never in your life seen marketing for a household product with a contract before (or even non-contract products with hidden fees) (and no I am not talking about houses, I never was)

C: You're simply the kind of person that feels the need that they have to win every argument/debate/fight they've ever been in so even though your arguments are completely ridiculous and invalid you won't stop until you've "won".

I'm sorry, but the word "only" has only one definition, and that definition can only be modified by actual modifiers. If I told you that my car only cost $40, that would be a blatant lie, even if that's all I had to pay up front. The only way to make it accurate in that case would be to say "my car only cost $40 up front" (even then, it's a little vague).

Can you honestly tell me that, if I said "I just bought my Xbox 360 for only $99", you would reasonably assume that I had bought it for $99 + $15 per month for 24 months? Even if there was some gesture to say that there's more to be said, I'm fairly confident that you would assume that the total price was $99. Note that I'm not including sales tax in this discussion - use of "only" without factoring in sales tax is a different issue (I prefer the Australian system, sales tax must be included in the quoted price).

There might be a cultural difference involved, though - does America have strong protections against false advertising?