Hiku said:
ils411 said:
If there was really a $150 price cut than the oriignal sku, which is the xbox with kinect bundle, should now be $349.00, which is not the case.
|
The bolded part is incorrect. In order to achieve a certain price point, manufacturers some times need to sacrifice hardware as well. Sony removed the Emotion Engine from PS3 as part of the strategy to reduce it's cost, along with some USB ports, etc. So if the hardware remained, it would not have achieved the same price point.
The reason Microsoft kept selling a bundle with Kinect is because they've invested a lot in it, as it was an integral part of their strategy with the Xbox One. Backwards compatibility for PS3 was not.
There's no rule that says you have to achieve a price cut in a certain way. Most consoles these days are sold at a $100 - $200 loss from day one, meaning they've already gotten a price cut based on nothing other than not wanting to give it an unattractive price.
What's true for all console price cuts is a lower price for the customer which comes at the expense of the manufacturer in some way, without sacrificing the essential core elements of the console. If you have another definition that applies to all console price cuts that differs from mine (in one sentence, not a bunch of different points and examples), then by all means, share.
However, it seems you didn't get why I said "By whatever name you wish to call it". It doesn't matter if someone calls it a price cut or giving fans more options or whatever else. The point is that Microsoft have so far been in a position where they felt more compelled than Sony to make financial sacrifices in order to bring their customers a lower price. Because that's what the conversation I quoted was originally about, and why people think they're likely to do it again.
I pointed out that unbundling the Kinect came with financial sacrifices, as they've spent millions on R&D and manufacturing deals for it. It's not the same as offering one version with a 500GB HDD and one with a 1TB HDD, which many people seem to be unaware of. They bit a financial bullet in order to get the price to $400. And they further lowered the price by $50 one year before the competition. That's what matters. Then what people chose to call those things is up to them, and can pointlessly be debated for all infinity.
|
Sorry, but no. My claim is still correct. To be considered a price cut, it must be the exsact same item with nothing removed and the price lowered, permanently.
and yes, price cut does come at a cost to the manufacturer BUT a new configuration with a new price point is not a price cut. Honestly, i dont care if MS pumps out different conifugrations fo the one with lower costs.
Again, my point is, a price cut is the lowering of the price of an item/sku and that item/sku retains all options/configurations from when it was priced higher.
I'm not even contesting that MS lowered the price of entry to play on the One, which i think you are under the impresion that iam, as I agree that they have cut the price of entry twice to date. And yes, i also know that it is costing them moneyz and i agree with you. All I am pointing out is the erroneous use of the term "price cut".
That is all.
