By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - The $99 Xbox 360 On Sale Now at Best Buy, GameStop

I know this is completely off topic, but I notice that a lot of the less income families like to buy big expensive electronics like HDTV's, PS3's, 360's, etc. I'm not sure why; maybe to try to hide the fact that they're poor? Just an observation I've made.

OT: Anyone that decides to get this deal, knows or will know exactly what they're getting into. Folks are not going to walk into Best Buy, buy an X360 at $99, and not knowingly be charged later on. Same way you walk into a cell phone store, and set up a plan.



Around the Network
smroadkill15 said:
I know this is completely off topic, but I notice that a lot of the less income families like to buy big expensive electronics like HDTV's, PS3's, 360's, etc. I'm not sure why; maybe to try to hide the fact that they're poor? Just an observation I've made.

OT: Anyone that decides to get this deal, knows or will know exactly what they're getting into. Folks are not going to walk into Best Buy, buy an X360 at $99, and not knowingly be charged later on. Same way you walk into a cell phone store, and set up a plan.


Yeah, I see this too.  I'm not rich but I make pretty good money.  I used to be very poor.  When I was living "check to check", all I cared about was buying nice clothes, watches, and stuff like that.  Now that I have a bit of financial security, I couldn't care less about having the nicest jacket or the coolest pair of shoes.  I don't even know what was wrong with me.  The decision between having electricity and having a new FUBU outfit should not have been a difficult one.

When I was a cop, I saw this a lot, too.  I was serving eviction notices on people that had Xbox 360's.  I had to serve civil papers for some "Rent-To-Own" place because somebody couldn't afford the payments on a Nintendo Wii--and I told the person, "This thing costs $250.  How in the hell did you get duped into paying over $1000 for this thing?"  And the reason was that it was a Christmas present and that was the best they could do.

Not only that, you'd be surprised how often I would arrest somebody wearing jewelry, clothing that looked like it came from a music video, and (at the time) an amazing cell phone.....but they couldn't scrape together a couple hundred dollars to bond out of jail.  I don't know what was going on.  Where they using public assistance to buy the things they never had?  I could really get off on a rant, here but I will leave it alone.

I'll just say that I totally agree with the last part of your post (the bolded).  Anybody that goes with this deal will know exactly what they are getting into because they are going to have to sit down with an employee, have everything explained to them, and sign a contract that will live nothing to chance.  That's why there is no reason for the ad, as advertised, to paint an unclear picture.  There's just no way there can be any confusion once the deal is completed.



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?



Aielyn said:
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 (Not necessarily....). 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?

 

only [ˈəʊnlɪ]

adj (prenominal)
1. the. being single or very few in number the only men left in town were too old to bear arms
2. (of a child) having no siblings
3. unique by virtue of being superior to anything else; peerless
one and only
a.  (adjective) incomparable; unique
b.  (as noun) the object of all one's love you are my one and only
adv
1. without anyone or anything else being included; alone you have one choice only only a genius can do that
2. merely or just it's only Henry
3. no more or no greater than we met only an hour ago
4. Irish (intensifier) she was only marvellous it was only dreadful
5. used in conditional clauses introduced by if to emphasize the impossibility of the condition ever being fulfilled if I had only known, this would never have happened
6. not earlier than; not…until I only found out yesterday
if only or if…only an expression used to introduce a wish, esp one felt to be unrealizable
only if never…except when
only too
a.  (intensifier) he was only too pleased to help
b.  most regrettably (esp in the phrase only too true)
sentence connector
but; however: used to introduce an exception or condition play outside: only don't go into the street
[Old English ānlīc, from ān one + -līc -ly2]
Usage: In informal English, only is often used as a sentence connector: I would have phoned you, only I didn't know your number. This use should be avoided in formal writing: I would have phoned you if I'd known your number. In formal speech and writing, only is placed directly before the word or words that it modifies: she could interview only three applicants in the morning. In all but the most formal contexts, however, it is generally regarded as acceptable to put only before the verb: she could only interview three applicants in the morning. Care must be taken not to create ambiguity, esp in written English, in which intonation will not, as it does in speech, help to show to which item in the sentence only applies. A sentence such as she only drinks tea in the afternoon is capable of two interpretations and is therefore better rephrased either as she drinks only tea in the afternoon (i.e. no other drink) or she drinks tea only in the afternoon (i.e. at no other time)

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

 

*see where I bolded "merely or just".  Replace the word "Only" with the word "Merely" or the word "Just".  That's the interpretation that the rest of the world sees when we look at that ad. 

"Your honor, I rest my case!"



d21lewis said:

*see where I bolded "merely or just".  Replace the word "Only" with the word "Merely" or the word "Just".  That's the interpretation that the rest of the world sees when we look at that ad.

I don't see any difference if you substitute "merely" or "just" into it. "I bought my Xbox 360 for just $99", "I bought my Xbox 360 for merely $99" - same thing.



Around the Network
Aielyn said:
d21lewis said:

*see where I bolded "merely or just".  Replace the word "Only" with the word "Merely" or the word "Just".  That's the interpretation that the rest of the world sees when we look at that ad.

I don't see any difference if you substitute "merely" or "just" into it. "I bought my Xbox 360 for just $99", "I bought my Xbox 360 for merely $99" - same thing.


It suggest that it's a small amount.  However, what constitutes a small amount is open for interpretation.  For example:

Officer: "You're under arrest."

Guy: "Under arrest?  I only puched him.  It's not like I shot him!"

or

Me:  "That's a nice hat!"

You:  "Yeah, for only $40, you can have one, too!"

Me:  "Only $40!?  I expected it to cost much more."

You'll probably interpret these as me saying that "Only punched him" or "Only cost $40" as meaning "It was this and this alone.  Absolutely nothing more".  That's not the meaning I was going for.  I mean that, in comparison to something else, the actual is less than the expected.  You expect to walk into the store with $150 and not be able to leave with an Xbox 360.  In reality, for merely/only/just $99, you can walk into a store and walk out with an Xbox 360*

 

*but you're going to have to agree to subscribe to Xbox Live for two years at $15 a month to do this.



d21lewis said:

It suggest that it's a small amount.  However, what constitutes a small amount is open for interpretation.  For example:

Officer: "You're under arrest."

Guy: "Under arrest?  I only puched him.  It's not like I shot him!"

or

Me:  "That's a nice hat!"

You:  "Yeah, for only $40, you can have one, too!"

Me:  "Only $40!?  I expected it to cost much more."

You'll probably interpret these as me saying that "Only punched him" or "Only cost $40" as meaning "It was this and this alone.  Absolutely nothing more".  That's not the meaning I was going for.  I mean that, in comparison to something else, the actual is less than the expected.  You expect to walk into the store with $150 and not be able to leave with an Xbox 360.  In reality, for merely/only/just $99, you can walk into a store and walk out with an Xbox 360*

 

*but you're going to have to agree to subscribe to Xbox Live for two years at $15 a month to do this.

But you see, the meanings don't segregate out. Both interpretations must apply simultaneously. If the Guy said "I only punched him", and in fact, he'd punched him and knifed him, he would have quite clearly lied. And if it cost you $50 to get a copy of my hat, then "for only $40" is false, whether you meant it to indicate cheapness or total amount.

And while the statement you made of "...walking into a store and..." is reasonable, it is not stated in the same manner. The ad doesn't say that you can walk out of the store with a 360 having paid only $99, it says that you can buy an Xbox 360 for only $99. What you have done is introduced an alternative way of saying "up front" or "deposit", something that is very much absent in the ad.



Aielyn said:
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?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. And no, that doesn't mean you win/won the argument....it's a draw (which I'm sure must just chap your hide)

Feel free to get the "last word" in though, if it makes you feel any better.



Aielyn said:
 

But you see, the meanings don't segregate out. Both interpretations must apply simultaneously. If the Guy said "I only punched him", and in fact, he'd punched him and knifed him, he would have quite clearly lied. And if it cost you $50 to get a copy of my hat, then "for only $40" is false, whether you meant it to indicate cheapness or total amount.

And while the statement you made of "...walking into a store and..." is reasonable, it is not stated in the same manner. The ad doesn't say that you can walk out of the store with a 360 having paid only $99, it says that you can buy an Xbox 360 for only $99. What you have done is introduced an alternative way of saying "up front" or "deposit", something that is very much absent in the ad.

It doesn't say you can buy an Xbox for only $99.  It says for only $99 plus a subscription, you can jump into the Xbox experience.

"with"--as in "in addition to"



yo_john117 said:
Aielyn said:
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?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. And no, that doesn't mean you win/won the argument....it's a draw (which I'm sure must just chap your hide)

Feel free to get the "last word" in though, if it makes you feel any better.

that made me literally lol