Tonight I remembered a Chris Rock joke. Where he talked about never asking your girl how many guys she slept with before hooking up with you, because no matter the number it is going to be too much for you. She could say two, and you couldn't handle that. The point being that you don't really want to know. The answer is never going to make you happy, and it ain't like your planting a flag where no man has gone before. 

This got me thinking that the joke kind of has some bearing on the Kinect pricing debate, or more specifically the lack of a debate. You know I am hard pressed to remember a hardware price tag this generation that hasn't been made out to be a bad thing, and it goes both ways. Either the price is high/overpriced, or the price is low/crap. Basically there is no winning when it comes to the price. All a price does is give the critics ammunition. Just out of curiosity given how the enthusiasts at least in this community act do we actually have a justifiable reason as to why we should be given a price.

I mean if no matter what we are going to hate on the price one way or another. Then what is there to gain by sharing it before they have to with anyone. All that is going to get them is a whole lot of negative stories to contend with. While not sharing the price means we have to judge the product on merit alone. Basically is getting the price too much for us to really handle. Once we get it then our problem is with the price. Which is worse not having the price, or having the price and complaining about that.

Just curious, and please keep it on topic. Lets not make this a Chris Rock thread.

I don't think anybody would compalain if the MSRP turned out to be $50. Even $100, while it might draw some grumbling, is pretty comparable to the price of Wii Fit.

I guess I'm just trying to think of a circumstance where people would complain about the price being too low. I do tend to find the idea subsidized (loss-leading) goods distasteful, but I'm a little weird in that respect, and I doubt there are many others who share my opinion.

So I don't really agree that any amount would be too much, except of course for people who detest Microsoft or motion controls.

@famousringo

The Nintendo Wii is two GameCubes duct taped together springs to mind. Along with a whole litany of accusations that basically called the console cheap, and on the other hand overpriced. You are right that its the haters that are almost to a person universally unsatisfied by any price. The point being that to them a price point is ammunition.

Tagged 4 later

I really cannot remember people complaining about a price being too low. When there was a rumour that Kinect would be as cheap as $50, people were enthusiastic. You will probably always find someone who thinks different, but they are just rare exceptions.

@ArnoldRimmer

At first I thought it was selective memory on your part. A lot of forum members sanitize the past. Not so much a case of nostalgia painting the past as people repaint the past to cover up the blood stains. That said I checked your join date, and I can see that you basically missed the party that took place on this, and many other forums. That said I can assure you that price points are always a spin fiasco. Let me say this the level of spin about the peripherals so far is only a shadow of what it will be until they are both priced. Nobody wants to commit to a strategy that could blow back on them.

Basically without the price point we get rebels without a cause. They can't argue against the price without the price, and a lot of them fully intend to argue against the price regardless. To them the price can only be a argument against the platform and the peripheral. They just can't make a paradoxical argument at this point without seeming grossly stupid in the process. You can't hold the position that something is both cheap and over priced. They could never argue that openly they would get crushed by rational posters in a instant. Not that their final argument will be all that persuasive unless the price is way out on the margins either way.

Basically this is what Fanboys do. They come from the position that they are going to trash the other manufacturers. Not that they disagree with a point in principle, but they disagree with the concept that the other manufacturers even exist at all. They have a Us versus Them mentality, and they see no problem with churning out propaganda. All of that even before you run into users that just have a strong bias. Trust me people that fairly balance the issue on these forums and on others are the real rarity.

That's a great analogy.  I'm sure it applies to many, but others have more legitimate concerns about 'entry pricing'.  At the moment the rumour mill would lead us to believe that the cheapest you can enter into Microsofts controller free foray is $300, with the newly discounted old stock units of Arcades selling at $150.  A full $100 more than a Wii.  Though this could be a market skimming tactic, with the price dropping soon afterwards if demand is not met.   

If the price is low, the only people that complain are simplistic fanboys on the opposite side that think just because a console is half the price, it should be selling double the amount of consoles? I've never heard such a ridiculous dumb measure on things, but unfortunately it's common ...

You also have to consider the fact that they have been resetting the expectations to a higher price and if they come in lower its going to be 'cheaper than expected' even if the price is twice as high as what many people considered to be the highest possible price. Remember when Kinect couldn't be any higher than $59-69 at the most or it would FAIL, now a price which is under $149 is less than what most people expect. So they can turn it into something which nets them a positive buzz.

Well there are obviously theories a plenty as to the advantage of not disclosing the price. Looking at the problem from the other side of the issue you see as I have pointed out. While there may be a host of potential benefits in not telling. Their disclosing the price is only disadvantageous, and isn't that enough of a reason not to do it in the first place? They don't have to be wanting to manipulate us. They just have to not want to take the smears.

A good analogy would be finding a bear trap in the woods. Now everyone is debating about the advantage of not sticking their foot into the trap, but is it really the most logical thinking. I mean if I run into a bear trap my only thought is that I probably shouldn't step into that trap, because I will lose my damn leg. I can understand the temptation to make things more complicated then they are, but some times a cigar is just a cigar.

With all the discussion I have yet to read anyone make a solid argument as to why Microsoft should share the price of their peripheral. I guess what I am pointing at is why should doing something even be a option without a real justification for doing that in the first place. There is a lot of talk about effect going on, but it isn't as if there is a cause. Other then well everyone else is doing it, or has done it before. Well to get to the point why are we discussing a company not doing something that would be stupid in the first place. Do we discuss it every time someone doesn't do something stupid.

There are so many things that are, and there are so many things that aren't. Were we to spend all our time debating things that aren't then we will be talking about nothing till the end of time. That is what all this discussion has been about. Nothing happened today.